Has the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the right to marry in the KS Puttaswamy, Shafin Jahan, Shakti Vahini, and Navtej cases? Is there a fundamental right to marriage under the Indian Constitution? (15m)
SHAFIN JAHAN V. ASHOKAN (2018):
o Context: The case involved a habeas corpus petition where Hadiya's father challenged her marriage to Shafin Jahan, claiming she was under coercion and needed to be returned to her family.
o Judgment: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision that had declared the marriage void. The Court emphasized that the choice of a life partner is integral to an individual's right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in their respective judgments, affirmed that individual autonomy in choosing a partner is protected by the Constitution. The Court asserted that the State cannot interfere in an individual’s personal choices, including matters of marriage.
SHAKTI VAHINI V. UNION OF INDIA (2018):
o Context: This case addressed the issue of "honour killings" and other forms of violence motivated by caste or religion. The petition sought directions to combat such crimes and protect individuals' rights to marry outside their caste or religion.
o Judgment: The Supreme Court directed preventive and punitive measures to address honour killings. Chief Justice Dipak Misra highlighted that the ability to choose a life partner is a fundamental aspect of dignity, and individuals have the right to marry whom they choose.
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA (2017):
o Context: This case primarily dealt with the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
o Judgment: While Justice Nariman's concurring opinion touched upon personal choices, including the right to abort and same-sex relationships, it did not specifically rule on the right to marry. The case affirmed privacy as a fundamental right but did not explicitly establish the right to marry as a constitutional guarantee.
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR V. UNION OF INDIA (2018):
o Context: The case decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
o Judgment: The Court recognized the right to physical, mental, and emotional companionship under Article 21 but did not explicitly rule on the right to marry. The focus was on decriminalizing homosexuality rather than affirming a constitutional right to marry.
SUPRIYO V. UNION OF INDIA, 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1348 :
The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, PS Narasimha, JJ. wrote 4 opinions on the Same Sex Marriage/Marriage Equality matter where they agreed on some points and disagreed on others. In a 366 pages long verdict, heavy on words, all judges said in one voice that there was no fundamental right to marry.
“The Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to marry. An institution cannot be elevated to the realm of a fundamental right based on the content accorded to it by law. However, several facets of the marital relationship are reflections of constitutional values including the right to human dignity and the right to life and personal liberty.” – CJI DY Chandrachud.
In summary, while the Supreme Court has reinforced the protection of individual choice in matters of marriage, including affirming the right to marry a partner of one's choice and condemning interference based on caste or religion, it has not conclusively declared a broad constitutional right to marry in its own right.
Comments