The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently denied protection to an inter-religious couple in a very concerning order. The couple, a Muslim man and a Hindu woman, wanted protection from the woman’s family, who were threatening them. They had tried to get married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which allows interfaith marriages without conversion. However, the woman’s family objected, preventing them from getting married. The couple asked the Court to protect them so they could safely appear before the Marriage Officer.

Denying the protection, the Court not only determined an issue which wasn’t raised but also neglected the very purpose for which the Special Marriage Act was enacted.

Erroneous – the context and the law

The petitioners approached the Court for police protection relying on the judgment in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), wherein the Supreme Court directed – “that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.” 

This judgment was binding on all the authorities including the High Courts. In its order, the MP High Court didn’t even address the applicability of this judgement on the case and proceeded to decide on the issue of a valid marriage, which was not even raised in the petition.

The High Court solely relied on the judgment in Mohammed Salim through LR v. Shamsudeen (D) through LR (2019), which was analyzed without paying attention to the context and issues raised in the case. In Md. Salim’s case, the issue before the Supreme Court was – whether a child being born out of an irregular marriage (fasid) is entitled to claim share in his father’s property. The Supreme Court held that the marriage between a Muslim man and a woman who is an idolator (worshipper of an idol) or fire-worshipper is irregular. The marriage in the said case was performed under Muslim personal law and therefore the observation was made in that context.

In this case, on the other hand, the petitioners were desirous of getting married under the Special Marriage Act and not under the personal laws. The Court completely ignored this fact and went on to apply the ratio of Md. Salim’s case in the present case.

The petitioners solely sought protection from the Court to perform marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The question that ought to be addressed in this case was – whether, based upon the facts, the petitioners shall be granted protection or not, but rather the Court addressed – “whether marriage of a Muslim boy with a Hindu girl would a valid marriage or not?“

Even after an incorrect reading of the facts, to start with, the observation of the High Court in its concluding paragraph is even more erroneous. In para 12 of the order the Court observed – “Under personal law, performance of certain rituals are necessary for solemnization of marriage. However, if marriage is performed under Special Marriage Act, then such marriage cannot be challenged on the ground of non-performance of such mandatory rituals. But marriage under Special Marriage Act would not legalise the marriage which otherwise is prohibited under personal law. Section 4 of Special Marriage Act provides that if the parties are not within prohibited relationship then only marriage can be performed.”

The Court has misinterpreted “prohibited relationship” to include interfaith unions. The term is generally used to denote blood relations and that a martial relationship between couples falling under the ‘degrees of prohibited relationship’ is prohibited. It doesn’t include prohibitions imposed by personal laws.

An unfortunate precedent

The Court’s reading of Section 4 is completely missing the very object of enacting the Special Marriage Act which was enacted to facilitate interfaith and interreligious couples in solemnizing and registering their marriages, irrespective of their personal laws. Specifically, it was designed to allow couples to marry outside their caste and religion, which would otherwise be prohibited by their personal laws or religious texts. Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act (contains the conditions for solemnizing marriages under the act) starts with “Notwithstanding any other law currently in effect regarding the solemnisation of marriages.”

The intention behind its enactment is very clear from the word ‘notwithstanding’. The intention was to override the pre-existing laws. The High Court got the basics wrong in the present case and didn’t analyse the essentials of the special act. The Court resorted to personal laws (based on religion) to adjudicate a matter which concerned a secular marriage and completely contradicted the well established principles of marital laws. This order might serve as a precedent to deny protection to every inter-faith couple, concerning a Hindu and a Muslim, which essentially goes against the concept of communal harmony for which the Special Marriage Act was enacted and, therefore, shall be overruled in appeal.