Interfaith couples face risks under marriage law

Source: The post Interfaith couples face risks under marriage law has been created, based on the article “A LAW, WEAPONISED: The no-objection provision defeats the purpose of the Special Marriage Act” published in “Indian Express” on 22nd February 2025.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper1-Society – Salient Features

Context: The article discusses an interfaith couple in Bhopal who faced violence for legally registering their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. It criticizes the Act’s notice period, which compromises privacy and enables interference, and highlights concerns about religious intolerance and privacy violations.

For detailed information on Contradictory approach of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on inter-faith marriage read this article here

Why was the couple attacked for registering their marriage?

1. A Muslim man and a Hindu woman in Bhopal tried to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
2. A group of vigilantes attacked the man inside the court complex. CCTV footage of the attack went viral on social media.
3. The couple had followed legal procedures, yet their right to marry was denied through violence.

How does the Special Marriage Act put interfaith couples at risk?

1. Mandatory Public Notice: The Act requires couples to give notice one month before marriage. This compromises their privacy and safety.
2. Privacy Violation: In the Bhopal case, a leak from the marriage registrar’s office led to an attack on the couple.
3. Misuse of Objection Clause: Section 7 allows anyone to object, even for personal vendetta, vested interest, or social bias.
4. Failure to Protect Couples: The male partner was beaten inside a court, proving that even legal institutions do not ensure safety.

Why are interfaith marriages facing increasing resistance?

Religious Bias and “Love Jihad” Narrative: Many Hindu-Muslim marriages are wrongly labeled as “love jihad”, implying forced religious conversion. This leads to opposition from moral policing groups.

2. Judicial Contradiction: The K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017) declared privacy a fundamental right, yet the law exposes interfaith couples to harm.
3. The couple’s case shows that even legal protection and court premises do not ensure safety.

What needs to change in the law?

1. Section 7 of the Special Marriage Act allows public objections, but it is often misused.
2. Privacy violations and religious bias make interfaith marriages difficult.
3. The government must reform this law to protect couples from harassment and violence.

Question for practice:

Examine how the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, compromise the privacy and safety of interfaith couples in India.