Mandatory Publication Of Notice Of Intended Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Violates Right To Privacy:...
Mandatory Publication of Notice of Intended Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Violates Right to Privacy
1. Background
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 governs civil marriages between individuals irrespective of religion. Section 5 of the Act mandates the publication of a notice of intended marriage by the Marriage Officer in a conspicuous place, inviting objections within 30 days.
This provision aims to ensure transparency and prevent unlawful marriages (e.g., bigamy, underage marriages).
2. Issue: Right to Privacy vs. Mandatory Notice
With evolving jurisprudence on right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, concerns have been raised that the mandatory public display of personal details, including names, addresses, and dates, infringes the individuals’ privacy and autonomy.
Critics argue that:
Publication exposes couples to public scrutiny, harassment, social stigma, especially interfaith or LGBTQ+ couples.
It violates the right to privacy and dignity guaranteed under the Constitution.
In certain communities, it could lead to honor-based violence or social ostracism.
The requirement is an unreasonable restriction on personal liberty.
3. Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 firmly established the right to privacy as intrinsic to Article 21.
Privacy includes the right to make personal choices without unwarranted interference.
The Court held that any restriction on privacy must be just, fair, reasonable, and proportionate.
4. Relevant Case Law
📌 Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368
The Supreme Court emphasized the right of an adult woman to marry a person of her choice as part of her fundamental right to personal liberty and privacy.
Forced public disclosures, especially in interfaith or live-in relationships, may infringe privacy.
📌 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1
The Court reinforced that privacy includes sexual orientation and identity.
State actions impinging on private relationships must be strictly scrutinized.
📌 Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1
Held that the right to privacy extends to family life and personal choices.
Excessive disclosures are contrary to privacy interests.
📌 X v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 784/2018 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court expressed concerns over the mandatory publication of notices under the Special Marriage Act.
Suggested reforms to protect privacy while balancing transparency.
5. Arguments Against Mandatory Publication
The mandatory notice is disproportionate and intrusive.
It creates a chilling effect on individuals exercising their right to marry.
Potential for misuse by detractors to harass or intimidate couples.
Privacy can be protected through alternative measures like confidential verification without public display.
6. Possible Reforms and Court Suggestions
Make notice publication optional or confidential with notices served only to relevant authorities.
Introduce safeguards against misuse of information.
Balance between state’s interest in preventing illegal marriages and individual’s privacy.
The judiciary urges legislative amendment or executive guidelines respecting privacy norms.
7. Conclusion
The mandatory publication of notice of intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act violates the right to privacy insofar as it exposes intimate personal information to the public, leading to harassment and stigma.
While the state’s objective to prevent unlawful marriages is legitimate, the method must be proportionate, minimally intrusive, and respect fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments