The Indian Supreme Court has ruled that not all marriages must be publicly declared or solemnised.
The Supreme Court declared on Monday that not every lawful marriage necessitates a public proclamation or solemnization in a specific way, highlighting the significance of liberty in selecting life partners and approving a Tamil Nadu law that permitted “self-respect” marriages.
Couples planning to wed may choose not to announce their engagement to the public for a number of reasons, including family disapproval or concern for their safety. A bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar stated that in these situations, enforcing a public proclamation could endanger lives and could lead to forced separation.
According to state law, the couple can tie the thali, garlands each other with flowers, or declare that they are each other’s husband or wife in whatever language they both understand. The couple can also exchange wedding rings or place garland on each other’s fingers.
The Madras high court, citing a decision from the same high court from 2014, disapproved of marriages being performed by solicitors at their offices under Section 7-A of the HMA in a decision on May 5. It also stated that unless a marriage is registered in accordance with the 2009 Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, the marriage performed by solicitors in their office is invalid. The court further said that the physical appearance of the parties to the marriage before the marriage registrar is essential.
In dismissing a habeas corpus petition brought by a man who claimed that his wife, with whom he had been married in a ceremony before counsel, had been taken away by her parents violently, the high court made its ruling. Through lawyers A Velan and Mrityunjay Pathak, the man appealed this ruling.
The Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling that a wedding conducted in the presence of family, friends, or other people by a simple ceremony was sufficient for a marriage to be valid under Section 7-A was relied upon by the top court on Monday, overturning the decision of the high court.
Also read: I Don’t Want Any Post, I Only Want To Unite Oppn Parties: Nitish
“The Madras high court’s position in the Balakrishnan Pandiyan Case (2014) is incorrect. It is predicated on the idea that every marriage needs to be publicly declared or solemnised. Such a perspective is oversimplified because, frequently as a result of parental pressure, couples intending to wed may not do so for the same reason, hold, or make the same public declaration, as doing so would likely endanger their lives and result in threats to their bodily integrity or forcible or coerced separation, the bench noted.
Also read: Father Killed His 19-Year Old Daughter In Hate Crime
The court added that it is not only difficult to imagine other pressures being applied to two people who are otherwise adults and have free will, but that the 2014 Madras high court judgement also violates their constitutional right to due process under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court continued by citing a number of authoritative judicial rulings that recognised the freedom to select one’s life partner as a basic right protected by Article 21. It made reference to the 2017 Shafin Jahan-Hadiya case ruling by the Supreme Court, which emphasised the need to give full effect to an individual’s personal liberty.
According to Section 7-A of the HMA, lawyers may officiate at marriages even if they are not serving in the position of a judicial officer but rather as a friend, relative, or social activist. “Advocates are capable of many things. They serve as court officers. They shouldn’t volunteer to or take on the role of marriage solemnization while serving as counsel or an advocate. However, their potential involvement as witnesses in their personal lives as friends or family members cannot be discounted,” it read.
In this instance, the bench noted the woman’s requests that she reside with the petitioner and granted the man’s request.
