Gujarat’s new marriage registration rules may mandate parental intimation

In a move that could reshape how marriages are formalised in Gujarat, the state government has proposed rules that would require couples to disclose whether their parents have been informed before their marriage is registered. Authorities, in turn, would be mandated to notify parents during the registration process.

The amendments, introduced in the Assembly on Friday under the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, are aimed at tightening procedures around marriage registration, particularly in cases involving elopements and instances of “love jihad”.

Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister Harsh Sanghavi, announcing the proposals, alleged that “innocent girls are being trapped” and such practices were spreading “like termites” in society. He asserted that the government could no longer ignore the issue.

What the draft rules propose

According to the draft shared by the minister’s office: 

- Every marriage registration application must be submitted before an Assistant Registrar, along with a declaration stating whether the bride and groom have informed their parents about the marriage.

- Applicants would also have to provide the names, addresses, Aadhaar details and contact information of their parents.

- Once the Assistant Registrar is satisfied with the application, parents of both parties will be notified within ten working days.

- The application will then be forwarded to the Registrar of the concerned district or taluka. The marriage will be registered after 30 days if all requirements are met.

- The details will also be uploaded to a government portal proposed to be created for the purpose.

Officials said objections and suggestions from the public have been invited for 30 days through the Health and Family Welfare Department’s website, after which the final rules will be notified.

‘Not against love’: Government’s position

Sanghavi told the Assembly the government was “not against love” but would act strictly against those who “defame love through deceit”. He described marriage as a sacred institution rooted in Indian traditions and warned that fraudulent practices involving fake identities could have serious social and cultural consequences.

“Our government’s view is clear and unequivocal: if anyone tries to harm someone by posing as someone else, strict action will be taken,” he said.

Legal questions and the Hadiya precedent

The proposed changes are likely to invite legal scrutiny. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right of two consenting adults to marry is a fundamental right grounded in personal liberty and autonomy.

In the 2018 Hadiya case, involving Kerala natives Hadiya and Shafin Jahan, the Supreme Court restored their marriage after it had been annulled by the Kerala High Court. The court held that an adult woman has "absolute autonomy over her person".

A bench led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, along with Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, emphasised that "expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity".

The court rejected allegations of “love jihad” and observed that faith is intrinsic to a person’s meaningful existence, noting that "choosing a faith is the substratum of individuality and sans it, the right of choice becomes a shadow."

Referring to objections raised by Hadiya’s father, the court said he may feel there had been an “enormous transgression” of his right to protect his daughter, but that viewpoint “cannot be allowed to curtail her fundamental rights”.

"Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible," the court said.

Justice Chandrachud, in a separate opinion, underscored that the choice of a partner lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. “The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution,” he said.

He added, "Intimacies of marriage, including the choices which individuals make on whether or not to marry and on whom to marry, lie outside the control of the state. Courts as upholders of constitutional freedoms must safeguard these freedoms."

The Gujarat government has said the final decision on implementing the amendments will be taken after reviewing public feedback received during the consultation period.