Context:

• The article highlights how a legal provision meant to facilitate interfaith and inter-caste marriages - the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) - is often misused to harass and intimidate couples, particularly in cases involving religious differences.
• It discusses a case from Bhopal where an interfaith couple faced violence for attempting to register their marriage.

Case of Bhopal - When Law Becomes a Tool of Harassment:

• A Hindu-Muslim couple in Bhopal sought to marry under the SMA, which requires a 30-day public notice before solemnizing the marriage.
• Their information was leaked, leading to a violent mob attacking them at the court.
• The provision designed to ensure transparency instead exposed them to social and communal backlash.

Key Issues with the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954:

• Purpose vs. reality:
  • The SMA was enacted to provide a secular legal framework for marriage.
  • The law allows interfaith and inter-caste marriages outside religious personal laws, intending to protect individual autonomy and choice.
  • However, the 30-day public notice requirement often leads to societal interference, jeopardizing the safety of couples.
• Violation of privacy:
  • The Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) reaffirmed the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty).
  • The public notice provision violates individual autonomy, making personal decisions about marriage vulnerable to public scrutiny and opposition.
• Social and religious backlash: The leakage of private information from marriage registrars’ offices allows vigilante groups, moral policing, and religious extremists to harass couples.
• Misuse of the no-objection clause:
  • The law allows anyone to object to the marriage on arbitrary grounds.
  • Objections often stem from personal vendettas, communal motives, or familial coercion rather than legitimate legal concerns.

Need for Reform:

• The public notice requirement should be re-examined or removed to prevent privacy violations.
• The SMA should be aligned with constitutional values of individual liberty and freedom of choice.
• Ensure privacy protections in marriage registration, in line with the Right to Privacy judgment.
• The law should ensure protection rather than expose couples to threats.
• Strict action against harassment is needed to protect couples from societal backlash.

Conclusion:

• The Special Marriage Act, intended as a progressive law, has become an instrument of persecution for interfaith and inter-caste couples.
• Urgent legal reforms (for example, Section 7 of the SMA, which invites objections to marriages) are needed to prevent misuse and uphold the constitutional values of secularism, equality, and personal liberty.