In the wake of incidentsagainst interfaith couples by vigilante groups, the Allahabad High Court hasruled that couples seeking to solemnize their marriage under the Special MarriageAct, 1954 have option not to publish 30 day notice period stating theirintention to marry.
The order is said to have a bearingon the BJP ruled states who had passed laws stating so called 'Love Jihad.' Thestates like Uttar Pradesh with the laws prevent religious conversion formarriage.
Section 5 of the SpecialMarriage Act requires parties to give a 30 day public notice for theirintention to get married that is displayed at the office of the marriageofficer.
Justice Vivek Chaudhary inhis order on Tuesday said, "The interpretation of Section 6 and 7 readwith Section 46 containing the procedure of publication of notice and invitingobjections to the intended marriage in Act of 1954 thus has to be such thatwould uphold the fundamental rights and not violate the same."
Justice Chaudhary clarifiedthat in any case if the individual seeks to get more information about their tobe partner, they can opt for the publication of notice under Section 6. It willnot amount to violation of fundamental rights because they have chosen it outof their free will.
Chaudhary further added,"It would be cruel and unethical to force to force the present generationliving with its current needs and expectations to follow the customs andtraditions adopted by a generation living nearby 150 years back for its socialneeds and circumstances, which violates fundamental rights recognized by thecourts of the day."
He made a statement citing"changed social circumstances." Initially, the case by filed bySafiya Sultana who converted to become a Hindu and changed her name to Simranto marry Abhishek Kumar Pandey. Her plea was against her father who illegallydetained her without approving the marriage.
After the conversations withthe couple, the court ascertained that they thought religious conversion morequicker than by following the 30 day notice period route because it would havealso invited objections.
The court noted that such arequirement is obsolete considering the marriages in the personal law has nosuch requirement.