Right to Marry under Article 21 of Indian Constitution

The Constitution of India is the cornerstone of the country’s democratic framework. It enshrines fundamental rights that protect the dignity, autonomy, and freedom of individuals. Among these, Article 21 holds a special place as it guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. 

Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has interpreted this article expansively to include many unenumerated rights necessary for leading a life of dignity. One such right is the right to marry and choose one’s life partner. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention the “right to marry,” Indian jurisprudence has recognised this right as an essential aspect of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21.

Article 21: Text and Judicial Interpretation

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The phrase ‘life’ has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a broad and liberal manner. It is not confined to mere physical existence but includes the right to live with dignity. Similarly, ‘personal liberty’ encompasses all aspects of an individual’s personal freedom, including decisions related to family, marriage, and relationships.

Judicial pronouncements have extended the scope of Article 21 to cover various rights essential for individual autonomy, such as the right to privacy, bodily integrity, and reproductive choices. In this broad framework, the right to marry and choose one’s partner has found constitutional protection.

The Right to Choose One’s Partner

The freedom to choose one’s spouse is central to personal liberty and dignity. Courts have consistently upheld this right, especially when it involves consenting adults.

Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006)

This case was one of the earliest in which the Supreme Court addressed the right of adults to choose their life partner. Lata Singh, an adult woman, faced opposition from her family when she chose to marry a man from a different caste.

The Court held that the Constitution does not permit anyone, including the family or the State, to interfere with the choice of an adult in marriage. It emphasised that no law prohibits inter-caste or inter-religious marriages. The decision was a significant step in affirming the autonomy of individuals in matters of marriage.

Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018)

In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of honour killings and forced marriages. It recognised the right to marry as part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. The Court directed the State to take stringent measures to protect individuals from violence and coercion related to marriage. This ruling underscored the State’s responsibility to uphold and protect the freedom to choose a life partner.

Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) (Hadiya Case)

This landmark judgment involved a woman named Hadiya, who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man. Her father filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that she was under undue influence and that the marriage was not valid. The Kerala High Court annulled the marriage, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.

The Court held that the annulment of a valid adult marriage through habeas corpus proceedings was beyond the scope of judicial power. It reaffirmed that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral part of Article 21. The ruling highlighted the importance of respecting individual choices against societal or familial pressures.

The Right to Privacy and Its Connection to Marriage

The right to privacy was declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). The Court recognised privacy as intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Privacy encompasses the freedom to make choices about one’s personal relationships without unwarranted interference. The decision is significant in protecting the freedom to marry because it situates marriage within the realm of personal autonomy and intimate decision-making.

This ruling protects individuals from arbitrary state intervention or societal interference in consensual relationships, reinforcing that choices concerning marriage and partnership are private matters deserving constitutional protection.

Decriminalisation of Homosexuality and Marriage Rights

The Supreme Court’s decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalised consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This judgment affirmed that sexual orientation is an essential part of privacy, dignity, and personal liberty.

Although the Court did not explicitly grant a right to same-sex marriage, the decriminalisation marked a significant step towards recognising the autonomy of LGBTQ+ individuals in intimate relationships.

Following this, petitions such as Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023) sought recognition of same-sex marriages. However, the Court clarified the distinction between the right to choose one’s partner and the right to marry as a legal institution.

While the right to partner is constitutionally protected, the legal recognition of marriage is a matter for the legislature. The Court stated that same-sex marriage was not an explicitly guaranteed fundamental right under the Constitution, highlighting the need for legislative reforms.

Right to Choose a Partner vs. Right to Marry: The Nuanced Difference

It is important to understand the subtle distinction between the right to choose a life partner and the right to marry as a legal institution.

The Supreme Court’s position indicates that while individuals have the autonomy to select partners of their choice, the legal framework to formalise marriages must be provided by the legislature.

Statutory Framework Governing Marriages in India

The institution of marriage in India is governed by a variety of personal laws and statutes. These do not confer a fundamental right to marry but provide procedures and rules governing matrimonial relationships.

1. Special Marriage Act, 1954: This act provides a civil marriage option irrespective of religion, enabling inter-caste and inter-faith marriages.
2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Governs marriages among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. It lays down conditions for validity, registration, divorce, and maintenance.
3. Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872: Regulates Christian marriages, specifying formalities and registration.
4. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: Applies to the Parsi community, detailing marriage and divorce procedures.
5. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Prohibits and penalises marriages below prescribed ages (18 for girls, 21 for boys), safeguarding minors.
6. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: Governs Muslim marriages, divorce, and related matters.

None of these statutes explicitly recognise a fundamental right to marry. They outline eligibility, solemnisation, and registration processes, and set conditions under which marriage can be declared void or voidable.

Conclusion

The right to marry, though not expressly stated in the Indian Constitution, has been recognised by the Supreme Court as an essential facet of personal liberty, privacy, and dignity under Article 21. The freedom to choose one’s partner without coercion, discrimination, or violence is a fundamental right.