Read Time: 11 minutes

Dealing with a batch of protection pleas pertaining to interfaith marriages where religious conversion had taken place, Allahabad High Court called upon the Government of India to consider the constitution of a Committee/Commission for implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

In a 40 pages long comprehensive judgment, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar observed, "The stage has reached that the Parliament should intervene and examine, as to whether the country requires multiplicity of marriage and registration laws or the parties to a marriage should be brought under the umbrella of single Family Code."

Granting relief to the petitioners as regard to their grievances at hand, the court held that in pursuance of 'the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021', "the Marriage Officer/Registrar cannot refuse to register a duly solemnized marriage, and/or, insist of a conversion approval of the district authority.” 

Court observed, 

"The Unlawful Conversion Act, 2021, per se, does not prohibit interfaith marriage. The Marriage Registrar/Officer, however, lacks power to withhold the registration of marriage, merely for the reason that the parties have not obtained the necessary approval of conversion from the district authority. Such an approval is directory and not mandatory. If interpreted otherwise the Act would not satisfy the test of reasonableness and fairness, and would fail to pass the muster of Article 14 and Article 21."

The 17 petitioner couples had come to the court contending that in interfaith/interreligious marriages, the prior approval of the district authority followed by registration of marriage is not sine qua non before conversion and marriage.

They were facing legal proceedings as in all the 17 cases mandatory approval of the District Magistrate had not been obtained before conversion as per the Unlawful Conversion Act, 2021.

Notably, in all the 17 cases, only girls had converted into their respective partner's religion and a total of 8 Hindu girls had converted to Islam whereas 9 Muslim girls had adopted Hinduism and marriages were performed under various personal laws.

Consequently, court had to point out that in the backdrop of multiplicity of marriage and registration laws only, the State of Uttar Pradesh has enacted 'the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021'.

However, Court highlighted that Interfaith marriage, per se, is not prohibited under the Unlawful Conversion Act, 2021, but the parties undergoing interfaith marriage can be subjected to harassment.

Before reaching to its conclusion, Court also took note of the petitioners' contention that “the legal framework, pertaining to interfaith marriage, as it stands today, is archaic, regressive and primarily discourages registration and recognition of interfaith marriage, rather, the law compels and encourages a party to convert.”

Therefore, court held, 

" The legal system, particularly secular laws, governing marriage and registration, as it exists on date, compels and coerces a party to interfaith marriage to compulsorily convert. The conversion of faith may appear voluntary, but, at the same time it could in all probability be a case of going against one’s conscience, thus, unwillingly violating the freedom of conscience guaranteed to the individual under Article 25 of the Constitution.”

Accordingly, court emphasised over the issue of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). 

Clarifying that reference to UCC is confined to Family Code uniformly applicable to all the residents of India, court said that UCC is enlisted in Article 44 of the Constitution of India as a Directive Principle of State Policy.

Court further observed, 

“The piecemeal attempts of Courts to bridge the gap between personal laws cannot take the place of a common civil code. Justice to all is a far more satisfactory way of dispensing justice than justice from case to case. The Court has its limitations and cannot embark the activist role of providing a civil code. The Parliament has to step in and initiate the process of enacting the UCC by appointing a committee, and/or, making a reference to the Law Commission.”

Concluding the controversy at hand, the court opined that "the consent of the family or the community or the clan or the State or Executive is not necessary, once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock which is lawful and legal."

Therefore, stressing that the choice of a partner, whether within or outside marriage, lies within the exclusive domain of each individual, court directed the respondents to restrain from interfering with the life, liberty, and privacy of the petitioners to live as man and woman.

Court also directed that the police authorities of the respective districts shall ensure the safety of the petitioners and provide protection to them, if demanded or needed.

Court further directed the Marriage Registrar/Officer of respective districts are directed to forthwith register the marriage of the petitioners, without, insisting/awaiting approval of the competent district authority with regard to conversion of faith.

Additionally, the court also called upon the Government of India to consider the constitution of a Committee/Commission for implementing the mandate of Article 44, as directed by the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Mayra @ Vaishnvi Vilas Shirshikar and Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors along with 16 other writ petitions