Special Marriage Act, 1954: Protection or Persecution?

Context

The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 was enacted to provide a secular legal framework for interfaith and inter-caste marriages. It aimed to protect individual autonomy and choice but has instead become a source of harassment due to certain provisions, particularly the 30-day public notice requirement.

A recent Bhopal case highlights how this provision, instead of ensuring transparency, led to violence and intimidation, raising concerns about the law’s misuse.

Case of Bhopal: When Law Puts Lives at Risk

A Hindu-Muslim couple in Bhopal sought to marry under the SMA, but their personal details were leaked, leading to a mob attack at the court.

• Instead of ensuring legal protection, the law exposed them to threats.
• The public notice provision, intended for transparency, became a tool for social and communal backlash.

This case underscores the urgent need for reforms to protect couples from such dangers.

Key Issues with the SMA

1. Violation of Privacy

The Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy judgment (2017) affirmed the Right to Privacy under Article 21. However, the public notice provision:

• Forces personal decisions into public scrutiny.
• Exposes couples to societal pressure, harassment, and violence.

2. Social and Religious Backlash

• Moral policing and communal interference discourage interfaith marriages.
• Women face immense family pressure to abandon their marriage plans.
• Registrars’ offices leak information, making couples vulnerable to threats.

3. Misuse of the No-Objection Clause

• Objections often stem from communal motives or personal vendettas rather than legal reasons.
• Delays in marriage registration force couples to seek alternative methods, including conversion.

Need for Reform

To prevent misuse and align the SMA with constitutional values, key reforms are needed:

• Remove or modify the public notice requirement to protect privacy.
• Ensure confidentiality in marriage registration.
• Strict action against harassment to safeguard couples from societal threats.

Conclusion

The Special Marriage Act, 1954, meant to safeguard interfaith and inter-caste couples, has become a tool for persecution due to outdated provisions. The Bhopal case is a clear example of its dangers.

Urgent reforms—such as removing the public notice clause and ensuring privacy protections—are essential to uphold secularism, personal liberty, and the fundamental right to marry freely.