Is the Gujarat government’s proposed amendment to the Marriage Registration Act — requiring parental consent for marriages, reportedly to protect ‘Sanatana Dharma’ and prevent coercive relationships — constitutionally valid?
Would such a requirement conflict with fundamental rights, particularly personal liberty and the judicially recognised freedom of consenting adults to choose their spouse? Further, could this be challenged as violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, or as State overreach into private decisions of adults? Will such a provision withstand judicial scrutiny if enacted?
-- R Manikandan, Ambattur, Chennai
The attempt by Gujarat to require parental consent for marriage on the premise that marriage rests on religious notions reflects a regressive and flawed understanding of legal principles. Earlier, Hindu marriage law emphasised ritual requirements, such as saptapadi (seven steps), performed before the sacred fire.
However, Tamil Nadu moved away from this approach by introducing Section 7-A, recognising non-ritual or self-respect marriages as valid notwithstanding traditional ceremonies. This progressive reform was upheld by the Supreme Court. While some states have advanced individual autonomy, developments in places like Uttar Pradesh, where administrative approvals are required for certain interfaith marriages, indicate a contrary trend that risks pushing the country backwards.
Article 25 guarantees religious freedom but also permits reform of social practices. Any law mandating parental consent for adult marriages would therefore face a serious constitutional challenge and is likely to be tested before the courts.
Pre-censorship framework needs non-partisan panels, robust judicial review to ensure credibility
The Central Board of Film Certification has reportedly granted certification to films such as Kerala Story 1 and the upcoming Kerala Story 2, scheduled for release on February 27. At the same time, films like Jana Nayagan are said to have faced certification hurdles, allegedly due to their political undertones and the public stance of the lead actor. Some viewers perceive inconsistency in how politically sensitive films are treated, and even feel that courts have largely upheld the board’s decisions. From a legal standpoint, how should the CBFC’s discretion and judicial review be assessed in such situations? Do existing laws provide adequate safeguards to ensure neutrality and prevent perceived bias?
-- Kannan, Ambattur, Chennai
Ever since the Supreme Court upheld the system of pre-censorship, successive Central governments have exercised considerable influence over certification by shaping the composition of panels under the Central Board of Film Certification.
In practice, decisions to withhold certification or insist on cuts have often been perceived as partisan, particularly where films carry political overtones. Although judicial scrutiny is available, the process is usually slow and expensive, and many producers ultimately comply with the board’s directions rather than pursue prolonged litigation.
A notable example is Kutra Patrikai, directed by RK Selvamani, which required nearly a decade of legal struggle before release. This underlines the imbalance between regulatory authority and filmmakers. It is therefore necessary to appoint professional, non-partisan members to certification panels, ensure time-bound decisions, and provide quicker judicial review so that confidence in the certification process is maintained.
For legal queries, reach us at citizen.dtnext@dt.co.in
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are of Justice K Chandru, who is providing guidance and direction based on his rich experience and knowledge of the law. This is not a substitute for legal recourse which must be taken as a follow-up if so recommended in these columns