A marriage veto violates constitutional rights

The recently proposed amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 has sparked debate over adult personal liberty, conflicting with existing laws and society’s/state commitment to women’s empowerment. Announced in early 2026, the proposed law seeks to “protect family values,” curb alleged “love jihad” activities, and prevent coercion and fraudulent identities. While the state may extend legal protections to adults entering marriage, it must safeguard their constitutional freedom and liberty. The position pre and post proposed amendment is (1) Provisions (pre-amendment) - Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 - No requirement of parental consent; registration is for civil procedure ensuring legal recognition of marriage. (2) Provision (post-amendment, 2026) - Amendment 2026 - For marriages/inter-caste or inter-faith marriages, couples must submit a notarised parental consent form alongside the marriage certificate. The parent/s has to submit their ID like Aadhar card along with approval for issuing the marriage registration certificate. The prosed law makes marriage registration mandatory. (3) Key Features - the amendment applies to marriages crossing caste or religious boundaries; same-caste/faith unions remain unaffected. Enforcement is delegated to registrar of marriages, who may request additional verification of consent. The amendment is justified by the state as a measure to “prevent forced conversion and preserve social harmony”. But what will happen to the status of marriage when parents does not give approval. The parents may use their veto where they may not be comfortable due to social, religious and cultural etc obstructions.  This veto introduces a statutory barrier that directly interferes with adult individual’s autonomy over marital choices.

Sections 4 to 8 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, provide a structured civil framework for marriage, independent of religious customs. Conditions (Section 4): Establishes mandatory criteria: monogamy, sound mental health, minimum age (21 for males, 18 for females), and avoiding prohibited relationships. Notice and Publication (Sections 5-6): Parties must file a notice in a district where one has resided for 30 days. This notice is publicly displayed to ensure transparency. Objections and Inquiry (Sections 7-8): A 30-day window allows for public objections based on Section 4 criteria. The Marriage Officer must investigate objections within 30 days; if upheld, parties can appeal to a district court. This process ensures that civil marriages are transparent, consensual, and legally vetted before solemnization. The proposed law does not go with hand in hand with this central legislation.

Along with these provisions the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Article 21 of the constitution as encompassing the right to marry a partner of one’s own choosing. In Laxmibai Chandaragi B vs. State of Karnataka (2021), the court held that the freedom to marry without parental interference is a facet of personal liberty and privacy. The judgement emphasized that any state-imposed condition that curtails this liberty must be narrowly tailored and justified by a compelling public interest.  Shafi Jahan vs K.M. Ashokan (2018) reinforced that discrimination on the basis of caste or religion in matrimonial matters violates the equality clause. The court observed that the state cannot impose “socially regressive” restrictions that perpetuate historical hierarchies. The Court intervened by setting  aside the High Court’s ruling, stating that the marriage was valid as Hadiya was a consenting adult, and that parental approval is not a legal requirement. Reliance was made in article 21 of the Constitution. In Lata Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2006),  the court protected an inter-caste couple from familial coercion directing law enforcement agencies to safeguard their right to marry and to prevent intimidation. The judgement highlighted the parental consent requirements can become instruments of violence, particularly against women. Collectively, these decisions articulate a clear constitutional trajectory: adult individuals possess an entrenched right to marry and not to marry without parental approval, and any legislative intrusion must survive strict scrutiny.

Why the Gujarat Amendment falters?

The state argues that the amendment prevents “love-jihad” and protects cultural integrity. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected communal anxieties as a basis for restricting fundamental rights. In Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2021), the court held that the moral panic cannot outweigh individual liberty. No empirical data have been presented to demonstrate that parental consent reduces forced conversions; rather, the provision appears to codify communal suspicion. Empirical studies on inter-community marriages reveal that women bear the brunt of familial opposition and violence. By legally obligating parental consent, the amendment amplifies the leverage of male family members, contravening the protective rationale articulated in Lata Singh case (2006). Judicial precedent demands that any restriction on personal liberty be the least intrusive means available. The Gujarat amendment imposes a blanket consent requirement, irrespective of whether coercion is present. A more narrowly tailored approach such as a judicial review mechanism for alleged duress would satisfy the state’s interest without infringing on constitutional rights.

Plus we must also think of the logical problems it creates for two distinct set of people, first are those who somehow after coming of this amendment have gotten married now are liable to be penalised plus if the family now uses their so-called “veto power”, as above stated,  what happens do we break the family unit by declaring such marriage void ab initio? Secondly, if someone has married under the Special Marriages Act, 1954 in the past few years and that too without their parent’s consent then can now the parents of such couple voice their dissent to such marriage and what will be the outcome of such dissent on the marriage?  The newly proposed amendment leaves with far too many questions and uncertainties and with far few answers. This lack of sheer lack of clarity and predictability is never good for any legal system as it creates confusion, disorganization in a well-oiled machinery and anxiety for the common people of the society.

The proposed amendment represents a regressive approach that subverts constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Supreme Court pronouncements, clearly affirm adults’ rights to marry and not to marry without parental interference (right to choice is also fundamental right). By imposing a blanket consent requirement, the state not only disregards these precedents but also jeopardizes the safety and autonomy of inter-caste and inter-faith couples, particularly women. A truly progressive society must respect individual choice, uphold constitutional guarantees, and resist legislating based on unfounded communal anxieties. Instead of introducing a parental veto that imperils fundamental rights, the state can address coercion, fraudulent identities, and alleged “love jihad” through targeted special laws and judicial oversight.

Dr Arvind P Bhanu is Professor of Law and Research and Mayukh Roy is Research Scholar, Amity University Noida; views are personal