His speech in the Constituent Assembly is significant because it forcefully argues that a good constitution cannot function well if it is handled by bad people. Similarly, even a bad constitution can yield good results if it is used by good people.

In other words, much more than formal rules and procedures, the social location, interests, and intentions of those who interpret or implement them are important—a point which is often missed by liberal scholars but not by Dr. Ambedkar.

The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, with the aim of drafting the Constitution, was held on December 9, 1946, and it continued to function for around three years, with B. R. Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, bearing a major share of the responsibility. When the work of drafting the Constitution was completed, Dr. Ambedkar delivered his closing speech on November 25, 1949, a day before the Constitution was formally adopted. November 26 was later celebrated as Constitution Day to mark this historic event.

Giving his closing speech in the Constituent Assembly, Babasaheb put it: “… however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution.”

In his speech, Dr. Ambedkar argued that rules, laws, or the Constitution are not sufficient in themselves, nor do they guarantee justice, however well they may be framed. Beyond the law, the persons who interpret and implement it are the critical factor.

In the context of the Constitution, Ambedkar takes a critical sociological view and said that mere having good rules are not enough, if the person interpreting or implanting it has a bad intention. His argument is directly linked with his political movement to fight for the proportionate and effective representation for Dalits and other marginalised castes and communities.

The opponents of affirmative action, including reservation, often invoke the logic of meritocracy. However, anti-reservationists are not willing to accept the fact that merit is often defined through caste interests.

For example, the skills acquired by rich, upper-caste males are taken as the benchmark and imposed on the rest of society, ignoring the geographical, cultural, and linguistic diversity of the country, as well as the social and economic backgrounds of the people. Unlike such Brahminical logic, B. R. Ambedkar argued for bringing every caste and community within the process of decision-making so that they could not only make laws but also interpret and implement them in their own interests.

Dr. Ambedkar was of the view that if power is not shared and remains concentrated in a few hands, the interests of marginalised castes and communities are bound to be compromised. The same logic extends to the field of law, where mere formal rules cannot ensure justice for marginalised castes; rather, they must be in a position to interpret and implement them to ensure justice in society.

To illustrate B. R. Ambedkar’s argument, let us take the analogy of a car. A new car is not a guarantee of safe driving if it is handled carelessly. Conversely, even if a car has some technical faults, there is a greater chance that the journey will be safe if the driver is experienced and careful. In the context of law, Ambedkar is not merely satisfied with having a good constitution; rather, he is concerned about the misuse of a good constitution in the hands of bad people. But even if the constitution is not perfect, if those implementing it have good intentions, there is a greater possibility of bringing about justice in society.

Although Dr. Ambedkar, in his speech, disagreed with the Indian communists and socialists over their “condemnation” of the Constitution, Babasaheb’s sociological understanding of law comes very close to the Marxist critique of law. While liberal jurisprudence emphasizes rules and procedures and the idea of providing a level playing field to everyone seeking justice in a court of law, Marxist philosophers foreground the political dimension of law. Radicals argue that, in the absence of a genuine level playing field in society—where a few monopolise wealth and shape culture, religion, and other institutions to perpetuate their dominance—the judiciary and law cannot remain neutral zones of freedom and rational deliberation.

While the class character of society is central to Marxist thinking, it does not get displaced in Dr. Ambedkar’s analysis. While Ambedkar was a firm supporter of state socialism and of the state taking greater responsibility for people’s welfare, he strongly disagreed with the communists over their support for the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Dr. Ambedkar, on the other hand, was a strong advocate of bringing about equality and reconstructing an egalitarian order through democratic and constitutional means.

Having acknowledged these differences, Ambedkarite scholars and Marxists converge on the point that, unlike liberal scholars, they do not ignore the social reality and deep-seated inequalities that exist beyond the formal and legal structures of the state. While class and property relations are central to classical Marxist analysis, Dr. Ambedkar’s primary focus is on the caste-based graded inequality of Indian society. While Dr. Ambedkar does not ignore class contradictions in society, he, unlike Marxist scholars, explains class inequality through a caste-based analysis.

Since caste-based inequality remains deeply entrenched in society and the post-Independence state did not go much beyond providing formal equality to the lower castes and other marginalised communities, Dr. Ambedkar was acutely aware of the continuing presence of upper-caste hegemony from society to politics and from culture to the economy. That is why he was concerned that a good law in itself is not a guarantee of justice unless marginalised castes and communities are in a position to interpret and implement it in their own interests. These sociological insights of Dr. Ambedkar are crucial not only for understanding our judicial system but also for analysing other institutions of the state.

[The author is the author of the recently published book Muslim Personal Law: Definitions, Sources and Contestations (Manohar, 2026).]

Related:

Caste Shadow on Ambedkar Jayanti: From campus censorship to temple exclusion

On his 135th birth anniversary, we ask, would Ambedkar be allowed free speech in India today?

A principled PM, a determined law minister: Nehru, Ambedkar & Opposition in Indian Politics

The post Understanding power through caste: Dr. Ambedkar’s contribution to the sociology of law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death-Part 2-Pathbreaking Orders of the High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: People’s Watch

The post Decoding the Sathankulam Judgement on Custodial Death – Part 1 – Context of Torture in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the official police enquiry, Malabika, a resident of Garia and posted at Diamond Harbour BDO-I, returned home after work on the night of March 29, 2026. She went to bed with her daughter as usual. However, at around 1:00 AM, she suddenly fell critically ill and began vomiting. In a state of distress, she informed her husband, Amalesh Bhattacharyya, who was in another room, that she had consumed poison. The family immediately rushed her to Allied Nursing Home in Boral. As her condition deteriorated, she was shifted to Ruby General Hospital on March 30 for advanced treatment. Despite medical intervention, she succumbed to the effects of poisoning on March 31, 2026, at approximately 8:30 AM.

Family’s account and allegations

The bereaved family has attributed her extreme step to the overwhelming pressure arising from her official responsibilities, particularly those linked to the SIR of electoral rolls.

Her husband has stated that Malabika had been under severe mental strain for several months due to the heavy workload associated with SIR duties. He further alleged that she had recently faced humiliation in connection with her work, which deeply affected her. On the night of the incident, after returning home, she reportedly spoke about the distressing experience. Later, when her condition worsened, she confessed to having consumed pesticide. Despite immediate efforts to save her, her condition continued to decline, ultimately leading to her death. The husband has also raised allegations against the Election Commission, claiming that the work pressure imposed on her was excessive and unmanageable.

Allegations of work-induced stress

The incident has foregrounded serious concerns about work-induced stress among election officials tasked with high-stakes administrative responsibilities.

Family members and relatives have consistently maintained that Malabika was struggling with an unsustainable workload for a prolonged period. According to them, the demands of the SIR process had left her mentally exhausted and overwhelmed. They revealed that she had expressed her inability to cope with the mounting pressure and had even contemplated resigning from her position. Significantly, the official police enquiry also records that she had been “suffering from mental depression for the last few months due to SIR,” thereby lending weight to the family’s assertions.

Police Action and Ongoing Investigation

Following the incident, the Bansdroni Police Station registered an Unnatural Death (UD) case (No. 22/26 dated March 31, 2026) and initiated a detailed investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death.

At present, no formal complaint has been lodged by the family or any other party. However, the police have conducted an inquest and arranged for a post-mortem examination to determine the exact cause of death and to preserve medico-legal evidence. The investigation remains ongoing, and authorities are expected to examine all relevant aspects, including the alleged work-related stress factors.

 A nationwide pattern of electoral fatigue

Tragically, Bhattacharyya’s death is not an isolated incident but part of a grim, nationwide pattern linked to the SIR exercise. Across India, compressed timelines, technical failures, and coercive supervision have pushed grassroots election workers to the brink. In West Bengal alone, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) like Rinku Tarafdar and Shantimoni Ekka took their own lives late last year, explicitly citing unbearable pressure, faulty digital apps, and language barriers.

Similar tragedies have unfolded in Uttar Pradesh, where officials like Sudhir Kumar Kori died by suicide after being denied leave for his own wedding under threat of dismissal. From Gujarat to Kerala—where a BLO’s death triggered a statewide boycott—and Tamil Nadu, workers have succumbed to extreme distress, with some even suffering fatal, stress-induced strokes and heart attacks. These cascading tragedies reveals a systemic crisis, highlighting the urgent need to address the harrowing human cost of rigid administrative mandates.

Related:

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

The post AERO dies by suicide in Kolkata, family alleges extreme election duty pressure and humiliation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

High-Flying Service: The Decorated Career of Wing Cdr Akhtar

Wing Commander Akhtar, commissioned into the Indian Air Force on 15 December 2006, served the nation with distinction for 17 years. His career included key roles across the country—from training nearly 2,000 airmen at Air Force Station Tambaram to administrative leadership postings in Chandigarh and Allahabad. He also represented India internationally in a Young Officers’ Exchange Program with the Royal Thai Air Force.

He played a crucial role during the devastating 2018 Kerala floods, coordinating rescue and relief operations while serving at the Southern Air Command. After taking voluntary retirement (VRS) in July 2022 due to family commitments, Akhtar has been actively mentoring youth aspiring to join the armed forces and working with underprivileged students.

From Combat to Courtroom: A Veteran’s Fight for the Vote

According to Akhtar, his name was placed “under adjudication” during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR). However, before he could even be called for a hearing, his name was deleted in the second supplementary list released on March 28, 2026.

The Wing Commander (Retd) claims he followed all instructions issued by the Election Commission and remained in constant touch with the BLO at every step. “My name was there in the final list, so I had nothing to act on. But in the first supplementary list on March 23, it was marked ‘under adjudication’. I contacted my BLO, Mondal, but he did not tell me any procedure to follow and assured me that it would be restored automatically. Then on March 28, when my name was deleted in the second list, the BLO told me to hire a lawyer and approach the tribunal,” rued Akhtar.

What makes the case more puzzling is that:

Longevity: His name had been part of the electoral rolls since 2002.

Family Status: His family members’ names continue to remain on the list.

Lack of Due Process: No formal hearing or opportunity for clarification was provided.

The incident has sparked outrage among sections of civil society, with some questioning whether the deletion could be linked to the officer’s identity as a Muslim. “When a decorated officer with an impeccable service record is denied even a hearing, it naturally raises questions,” said Athar Firdausi, a rights activist.

Recently, Alt News, in its report “Bengal SIR: The Wall ECI Built Around Electoral Data and How We Broke Through It,” highlighted large-scale discrepancies, claiming that voters from communities less likely to support the BJP were disproportionately targeted for deletion or placed under doubt.

However, the Wing Commander is not the only alleged victim of the controversial SIR process. The list is long. eNewsroom has also reported that AGWB gazetted officer Reshma Shirin Iqbal’s name was deleted in a similar manner. Former Calcutta High Court judge Sahidullah Munshi’s name was also removed, and he publicly stated that the experience was not only humiliating but left him unsure of where to seek redress. It has also been reported that the names of the grandson and granddaughter-in-law of Indian Constitution illustrator Nandalal Bose were dropped.

Courtesy: https://enewsroom.in

The post No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Roy cited the case of Ripon Mollya, whose name was deleted despite his family’s long-standing voter registration in the constituency, and Jesmina Khatoon, whose name was purged following her marriage, even though both her parents and husband are registered voters. He noted that in Booth No. 56 of Swarupnagar Assembly Constituency, 13 names were deleted on February 28, followed by another 52 on March 23, with most belonging to legitimate citizens.

The letter accuses electoral officers of procedural failures, including ignoring Form 6 applications and petitions submitted to the District Election Officer and District Magistrate. Roy warned that “silly clerical typos” and departmental whims were being used to disenfranchise marginalized communities in border villages. He described the ongoing Special Intensive Revision as “chaotic” and “non-transparent,” turning what should be a citizen-friendly process into an instrument of harassment.

Calling the exercise of power a public trust, Roy demanded immediate restoration of the names of Ripon Mollya and Jesmina Khatoon, a time-bound inquiry into ignored applications, and directives to ensure marginalized populations are not excluded due to minor technicalities. “We look forward to your immediate intervention to end this ‘nightmare’ for these families and to uphold the sanctity of our democracy,” Roy wrote.

This complaint underscores growing concerns about electoral integrity and the protection of voting rights in sensitive border regions.

Courtesy: Counterview

The post Rights group files complaint over electoral roll purges in North 24 Parganas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund has now listed the matter for April 24, 2026. While the hearing itself was limited to procedural aspects, the petition raises substantive challenges to the Foreigners Tribunal process, the delay in approaching the Court, and the legal consequences of an ex-parte declaration of foreigner status. The legal aid in this case is being provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace.

Details of the previous case proceedings in GHC, challenging their detention, may be accessed here, here and here.

Proceedings before the High Court

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, submitted that the writ petition is maintainable and deserves consideration on merits for two primary reasons.

First, it was argued that the delay in filing the petition has been sufficiently explained, and is not attributable to any deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner.

Second, it was emphasised that the present petition has been filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court, which had expressly permitted the petitioner to challenge the Foreigners Tribunal opinion.

Advocate Dutta also sought that the Court may call for the records of the Foreigners Tribunal, particularly in light of the contention that the proceedings were initiated without disclosure of the grounds of suspicion.

The State, at this stage, did not address the merits of the challenge. Instead, it sought time to file an affidavit raising preliminary objections, specifically on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

The Bench allowed the request and passed the following directions:

• The State is permitted to file an affidavit on preliminary objection,
• The interim protection against deportation is extended, and
• The matter is listed on April 24, 2026, with a direction that a copy of the order be furnished to the petitioner.

At this stage, the Court has not adjudicated on maintainability or merits, but has kept the petition alive and ensured that no coercive action is taken in the meantime.

Background: Tribunal opinion and subsequent proceedings

The petition challenges the ex parte opinion dated June 13, 2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang, in FT Case No. BNGN FT/CHR/220/07, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had allegedly entered India after March 25, 1971.

According to the petition:

• The petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal through an advocate,
• However, due to financial constraints, he was unable to continue legal representation or file a written statement,
• As a result, the proceedings culminated in an ex parte opinion.

Following the declaration:

1. The petitioner was detained on April 30, 2019,
2. Subsequently released on April 30, 2021 due to Covid based relaxations,
3. Thereafter, he was required to report regularly to the police station, which he is stated to have complied with.

The petition further states that:

• On May 25, 2025, he was taken into custody again, allegedly without issuance of an arrest memo or any formal order cancelling his release conditions.

This sequence of events forms the immediate background to the present writ petition.

Supreme Court proceedings and grant of liberty

An important stage in the litigation is the petitioner’s approach to the Supreme Court. After earlier proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner filed an SLP, which came to be disposed of on December 12, 2025.

While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the Foreigners Tribunal opinion. This clarification is central to the present proceedings.

The petition asserts that:

• The current writ petition is being filed in exercise of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, and
• Therefore, objections based on delay or prior proceedings must be considered in that context.

Explanation for delay in filing the petition

The petition sets out a detailed explanation for the delay in challenging the 2018 Tribunal opinion.

1. Financial constraints- It is stated that the petitioner:

• Was unable to pay legal fees before the Tribunal,
• Could not pursue remedies thereafter due to continued financial hardship,
• Faced severe economic difficulty, particularly during the COVID period.2. Periods of detention- The petitioner’s ability to pursue legal remedies was affected by:

• His detention from 2019 to 2021, and
• His subsequent detention beginning May 25, 2025.3. Lack of access to the petitioner- The petition records that:

• Family members were not permitted to meet him freely,
• Efforts to obtain a fresh vakalatnama were unsuccessful,
• At certain points, even information regarding his whereabouts was not clearly disclosed.4. Absence of legal aid- It is specifically pleaded that:

• The petitioner was not provided legal aid, despite being eligible,
• The present petition has been filed only after assistance was arranged through an external organisation.5. Practical difficulties in preparing the petition- The petition had to be prepared:

• Without direct access to the petitioner,
• By reconstructing documents and facts from available records.

Legal submission on delay- On the basis of the above, it is argued that:

• The delay is neither intentional nor negligent,
• The matter involves citizenship and personal liberty, and
• The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, ought to consider the petition on merits despite delay.

Challenge to the tribunal proceedings

The petition raises multiple grounds challenging the validity of the Tribunal proceedings.

1. Absence of “Main Grounds” in Notice- It is contended that:

• The notice issued to the petitioner was a standard printed format,
• It did not disclose any specific grounds or material forming the basis of suspicion.

The petition argues that such a notice is insufficient in law and affects the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. Validity of the reference- The reference made by the police is challenged on the ground that:

• It was not based on disclosed material,
• There is no indication that there was application of mind before initiating proceedings.

3. Ex Parte opinion- The ex parte opinion is explained as a consequence of:

• The petitioner’s inability to sustain legal representation,
• Rather than any deliberate failure to participate.

4. Opportunity to contest- It is argued that:

• The petitioner was not provided access to materials relied upon,
• Nor given an effective opportunity to present his case.

Documentary basis of citizenship claim

The petitioner relies on several documents to establish his claim to Indian citizenship, including:

• Entries in the NRC 1951 relating to his family,
• Inclusion of his and his family’s names in voter lists of 1965 and 1970,
• Land records showing inheritance from his father.

These documents are relied upon to demonstrate longstanding presence and linkage within India.

Legal argument on burden of proof

The petition addresses the operation of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act by submitting that:

• While the law places an onus on the proceedee,
• This arises only after the State establishes basic facts justifying the reference.

In the present case:

• It is contended that no such foundational material was disclosed,
• Therefore, the burden could not have been validly shifted to the petitioner.

Reliefs sought

The petition seeks:

• Quashing of the Tribunal opinion dated June 13, 2018,
• Setting aside of the reference and notice,
• Directions restraining the authorities from acting on the declaration, including deportation.

Related:

“They were once sent back, awaiting deportation”: State’s new claim deepens uncertainty over fate of Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman

Gauhati HC defers final hearing in Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh petitions; Questions state on justification for continued detention

The post Abdul Sheikh Citizenship Case: Deportation stayed as Gauhati High Court Hears challenge to ex parte foreigner declaration, state to raise maintainability issue appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The process of drafting, tabling and passage of the Bill into law has been non-transparent and hurried, itself displaying an extremely undemocratic and unconstitutional approach. After some scant media reports regarding the state government’s intent, the Bill (Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 (Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam 2026) was tabled on Friday, March 13, 2026, hurriedly passed in the Vidhan Sabha on Monday March 16, 2026 (Vidhan Sabha) and March 17, 2026 (Vidhan Parishad).

Just days before Citizens for Justice and Peace, along with other city-wide groups had addressed a press conference outlining the major objections to the Bill. This Joint press conference was held on March 11, 2026. Participating organisations emphasise that introducing another anti-conversion law while the Supreme Court is actively considering the constitutional validity of similar statutes raises serious questions of legislative prudence and constitutional accountability.

CJP is a Lead Petitioner in the Supreme Court challenging all such laws filed in other states in since 2020.

The Maharashtra law, being hurriedly passed also comes at a time when the constitutional validity of similar anti-conversion laws across several states is already under challenge before the Supreme Court of India.

A batch of writ petitions –first filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Mumbai that is the lead petitioner in the Supreme Court– has been pending before the Supreme Court since 2020, raising fundamental constitutional questions about the scope of freedom of conscience, personal liberty, equality before the law, and the limits of State power in regulating religious conversion and interfaith relationships. Hearings in the matter that have happened intermittently with pressing demands made by CJP for an interim stay on the most egregious provisions are also scheduled today, March 11, 2026.

Originally filed against laws enacted in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, the petitions were later expanded—with the Court’s permission—to include similar statutes enacted in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. As a result, the ongoing proceedings now concern nine state anti-conversion laws, each framed as a “Freedom of Religion” or “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion” statute.

The petitions argue that while these laws are formally presented as safeguards against forced or fraudulent conversions, their design and implementation have created a legal regime that treats voluntary religious conversion as inherently suspicious, particularly when it occurs in the context of interfaith relationships or marriage.

Among the provisions under challenge are:

• mandatory prior declarations before a District Magistrate
• police inquiries into the reasons for conversion
• criminalisation of conversions associated with marriage
• third-party complaints by relatives or unrelated persons
• reversal of the burden of proof
• stringent bail provisions and enhanced penalties

According to the petitioners, these provisions subject the exercise of freedom of conscience to executive scrutiny and police investigation, opening the door to misuse and harassment, particularly against consenting adult couples and religious minorities.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court heard applications filed by CJP seeking interim relief against some of the most intrusive provisions, including those requiring prior declaration and enabling third-party complaints. The Court directed the Union Government and the concerned States to file responses, indicating that the matter raises serious constitutional questions requiring detailed consideration.

Several High Courts examining similar laws have already expressed concern regarding provisions that interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults. For instance, the Gujarat High Court stayed provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act that criminalised interfaith marriages involving conversion, while the Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed provisions requiring prior declaration before authorities. Ironically, BJP-ruled states have played ping-pong with Constitutional Courts on such laws since 2012. In that year, a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Justices Deepak Gupta and Rajiv Sharma) had struck down portions of an earlier version of the law in that state which sought to monitor (and penalise) the intention behind converting. The BJP was in power in Himachal Pradesh at the time.

Evangelical Fellowship of India vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013 (4) RCR 283 (Civil), which was a judgement authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, the Himachal Pradesh High Court court had set aside Section 4 of the HP Act of 2006 as ultra vires the Constitution and struck down Rules 3 and 5 thereunder and held that the right to privacy and the right to change the belief of a citizen cannot be taken away under the specious plea that public order may be affected. Arguing its case before the Supreme Court in early 2023, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh e pointed out that the 2006 Act was repealed and replaced by the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 in which provisions set aside by the High Court have been included.

The post Intrusive and Unconstitutional: CJP’s dissent note on Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Members of National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR – Gujarat) – a pan Indian collective of progressive lawyers and law professionals and the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM Gujarat), along with many civil society organizations of the state have strongly objected to the proposed amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006, notified on February 20, 2026. The groups have urged the State Government to withdraw the draft, citing serious concerns over constitutionality, privacy, and individual freedoms.

In a detailed letter of objections submitted to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Health and Family Welfare Department, these organizations have stated that the proposed amendments introduce provisions requiring submission of Aadhaar details, mandatory disclosure of whether parents have been informed, and the sharing of parents’ contact information. Further, authorities would be required to notify parents of a marriage application and impose a 30-day waiting period before registration.

According to the both organisations, these provisions are unconstitutional and violate fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy, personal liberty, and individual autonomy. They argue that the amendments go beyond the scope of the parent legislation and impose unwarranted state intrusion into personal decisions of consenting adults.

A key concern raised is the mandatory parental intimation, which undermines the legally recognised right of adults to marry a person of their choice without interference. The groups warn that such provisions could expose couples—especially those in inter-caste, interfaith, or socially sensitive relationships—to harassment, violence, and even “honour-based” crimes. The autonomy granted to adult citizens to make marriages of choice has been a factor of Indian secular life since the enactment of the Special Marriages Act of 1954.

The amendments are also being criticised for failing the proportionality test laid down by the Supreme Court in privacy jurisprudence, as they lack clear necessity, legal backing, and a rational connection to their stated objective. Civil society groups noted that there is no empirical evidence justifying such sweeping measures.

Additionally, the proposal is seen as potentially deepening caste and religious divisions, discouraging inter-community marriages, and enabling misuse of laws such as the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act through false complaints by disapproving family members.

The impact on women’s autonomy and LGBTQIA+ individuals has been highlighted as particularly concerning. The requirement of parental involvement could reinforce patriarchal control over women’s choices and further endanger queer and transgender individuals who often face familial violence and coercion.

The groups have also expressed alarm over proposals for digitized and publicly accessible marriage records, warning that such measures could lead to misuse of personal information and threaten individuals’ safety and dignity.

In conclusion, the organisations stated that instead of addressing genuine concerns, the amendments risk discouraging marriage registration altogether, thereby undermining the very purpose of the law.

NAJAR (Gujarat) and NAPM (Gujarat) –in a joint statement issued –have both called for the immediate withdrawal of the draft amendments and urged the government to uphold constitutional values, individual freedoms, and the right to dignity and choice.

The actual communication may be read below:

To,                                                                                                       Dated: March 19, 2026

The Additional Chief Secretary,

Government of Gujarat,

Health and Family Welfare Department,

New Sachivalaya,

Gandhinagar – 382010

Subject: Objections to the Proposed Draft Amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006  (Notification dated February 20,  2026) and Demand for Withdrawal of Proposed Draft

Sir/Ma’am,

We, individuals, organizations and collectives associated with the National Alliance for People’s Movements Gujarat and National Alliance for Justice, Accountability, and Rights, Gujarat, would like to convey our grave worries and formal objections to the proposed amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006 announced by the government of the state of Gujarat vide notification No. GHY/02/HFWD/102026/5/B1 dated 20.02.2026.

The way in which the proposed amendment aims to achieve its supposed intention (according to media statements issued by the Home Minister) of cracking down on those men who misrepresent their identities to women and fraudulently marry them appears to be severely misguided and is likely to cause more damage to the personal liberties of a large segment of the state as well as a long term disintegration of the society along religious and caste lines. The new rules are in clear contravention of the Articles 19, 21 and 51A (e) of the Indian Constitution and therefore unconstitutional. With respect to this, we the undersigned, demand withdrawal of the proposed draft amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006.

We hereby submit the following key rule-wise objections:

1. Objection against insertion of Rule 4 (3)(b)

Rule 4(3) prescribes for the mandatory accompanied documents with the memorandum, which already included identity establishing documents in 4(3)(a) and age verifying document as per 4(3)(c). There is thus no requirement of insertion of 4(3)(b) for submission of Aadhaar card. The courts [1]have time and again held that citizens cannot be denied basic services/entitlements/benefits for mere refusal to submit Aadhaar number. Further, it acts as an invasion of privacy even more so witnesses to the marriage. 

2. Objection against insertion of Rule 4 (5)

Through the insertion of Rule 4 (5), a declaration by both parties is required stating if their parents, have or have not been informed of the marriage, which is categorically submitted to be baseless, unconstitutional and beyond the scope of rule-making power of the state.

• At the outset, the power to make rules by the State Government in Section 21 of the parent act in particular, specifically matters described in Section 21(2)(a) to (f); the requirement of information to parents does not fall under the ambit of the same.
• The Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, The Special Marriages Act, nor the personal laws from The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, there exists no requirement for the parties to marriage to inform/show consent/witness of their parents. In fact in Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, in 1978 amendment the farthest resemblance to guardians consent was also removed.

3. Objection against insertion of Rule 4(6)

Unequivocally, the insertion of this proposed sub-rule requiring both parties to submit not only the name of their parents, but their ordinary place of residence as well as mobile number- is fundamentally capricious, manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Fundamental Rights under Art 14 and 21. While details of parents of the parties is already submitted in the Memorandum of Marriage (as expanded in the Schedule under Section 5) the requirement of mobile number violates the ‘proportionality test’ for state intrusion to privacy rights. Further, it exceeds the scope of the parent act. The preamble of 2006 Act focuses on registration for evidence, not notification for parental oversight.

4. Objection against insertion of Rule 4 (7)

The proposed rule provides for Assistant Registrar to ‘expeditiously’ within 10 days intimate the parents of the parties about the memorandum submitted by the parties to the marriage and to their concerned Registrar in that jurisdiction as well. The amendment read with Rule 4(6) is patently illegal exercise of delegated legislative power by the state.

1. The parent Act does not empower the state to change a procedural statute of an already solemnized marriage. Even though registration has been mandatory, mere non-registration cannot change the legal status of a solemnized marriage. The proposed amendment in the Rule 4(7) read with Section 8 of the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 and conditions laid down for a valid marriage in the Special Marriages Act, nor the personal laws can lead to unnecessary objections being raised by the family and other parties leading to delay in registration and harassment of parties to marriage.
2. The requirement to ‘send intimation to the parents expeditiously’ is a blatant discrimination against adults choosing their partners. Multiple judicial pronouncements have reaffirmed the right to marry as an integral part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. As the Supreme Court held in 2021[2]:-
   “We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial pronouncements of this Court clearly elucidating that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock and that their consent has to be piously given primacy. It is in that context it was further observed that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice is not is not expected to succumb to the concept of “class honour” or “group thinking”.
3. It is submitted that this proposal violates the intrinsic right to privacy of individuals, In Puttaswamy, [3]the Supreme Court held that any state restriction on privacy must satisfy the tripartite test of legality, necessity and proportionality. The proposed rule-making power fails on all three counts: it lacks legality by infringing upon the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 without statutory authority; it fails to substantiate the necessity of piercing established matrimonial autonomy or settled questions of law; and it is not proportional to the alleged objective of preventing “forced conversions” which remains a speculative concern that has not been statistically substantiated by the State to justify such a sweeping and coercive intrusion.

5. Objection against insertion of Rule 4(8)

The proposed rule 4(8) provides for registration of marriage after thirty dates from receipt of memorandum; upon being satisfied’ of compliance with sub-rules (1) to (7).

• Firstly, the proposed rule fails to provide any determining principle or purpose for this moratorium period of 30 days. While the underlying requirement of parental intimation is itself unconstitutional as substantantiated above, the rules remain silent on the consequences of this notice mentioned in Rule 4(7), and in event of no prescribed procedure merely serves as a baseless procedural hurdle with no nexus with marriage registration.
• Secondly, the proposed insertion is not in conformity with the Section 8 of the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006. It is important to remember that Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 is the parent act under which the rules are framed that are proposed to be Section 8 of the Act provides for the power to refuse the registration of marriage. The said section provides for only three specific circumstances in which the registration may be refused. Which is (a) marriage is not performed in accordance with the personal law of the parties, (b) the identity of the parties, or the witness or the priest is not established beyond reasonable doubt or (c) the documents tendered do not prove the marital status of the parties. When the scope of the refusal of the registration of the marriage is circumscribed by the parent legislation, the rules made thereunder cannot go beyond the same.

Additional suggestions/comments: 

Unclear Objectives

At the very outset, the prima facie un-tenability of the amendments lies in the absence of any clear and coherent objectives for their introduction. Any amendment to an existing law or rules should have nexus with a legitimate state goal in public interest. The stated intention at the time of the tabling the draft of new rules in the Vidhan Sabha are rather vague in nature and are also not substantiated by any empirical evidence either. The proposed amendments do not seem to fill any legal laps previously left in the light of Sections 4 and 5 of both the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which lay out the conditions of a valid marriage per the respective legislations.

Threat to Personal Liberties

The new provision whereby both sets of parents of a couple shall be informed upon their attempt to register a marriage is antithetical to the principle of an individual’s right to choose. The very reason that we have a minimum age for marriage is the underlying belief that an adult has both the right and the capacity to choose their partner.

The practice of “honour killings” of inter-caste or interreligious couples has seen a sharp increase in India as per the data of the National Crime Records Bureau released in 2025, which is itself believed to underestimation. Necessitating the involvement of the parents in the process of marriage registration can directly put people’s lives at risk. The violence is often not only limited to the couple itself, but can engulf two communities in a bitter and long-term conflict that ends up destroying several lives.

Promotion of Casteism & Religious Divisions

Caste and religious lines continue to divide our country. While the marked increase in the beneficiaries of the ‘Dr. Savitaben Ambedkar Inter-Caste Marriage Assistance Scheme’ (being the most relevant indiactor of inter-caste marriage trends in Gujarat) is a positive sign, the overwhelming majority of marital relations in our society are endogamous in nature. The general trend in this regard suggests that the younger generation i.e. those who are going to marry in the foreseeable future are relatively more open to the idea of inter-caste and interreligious marriage. Informing the parents of the marrying parties effectively creates an obstruction only for those parties whose parents would not agree to the marriage on religious or caste lines.

A form of retaliation by the parents opposed to the registration of such marriages may be by filing a false case under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2001. Section 3A of the Act empowers a relative of the “aggrieved person” to file a complaint of attempt to convert into a religion, and Section 6A of the Act puts the burden of proof on the accused to disprove the presence of fraud, coercion or allurement, failing which the accused shall have to face criminal charges. The additional requirement of intimation to parents of individuals may lead to criminalization of bonafide marital relationships in case the parents disapprove their marriage by way of criminal complaint under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act – effecting inter-faith marriages between two consenting adults.

Women’s Autonomy

Empowering parents to have a say in the marital decisions of woman, or in many instances being the decision maker on the woman’s behalf has been the primary way through which the power structures of caste and religion are preserved, as has been elucidated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his seminal Castes in India. Provisions like the one being advanced by the government of Gujarat tend to control the lives and choices of women at a disproportionately higher rate than men. In the case of Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018), also known as the Hadiya case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India strongly asserted the right of a person to marry someone of their choice, even if their parents are explicitly against the union. The then Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra stated in his judgement:

“In the case at hand, the father in his own stand and perception may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own volition, married the appellant.”

Further, while marriage registration has itself become necessary, the mere lack of registration itself does not annul the marriage. If a law like this which makes marriage registration difficult and potentially even life-threatening, many people may simply opt to not register their marriages, which can further lead to a rise in the many of the original problems that the new rules aim to solve.

Public Digital Record of Marriages

The proposal of digitizing publicly accessible marriage record being is another dangerous idea that can be used against bonafide couples/spouses. The name of a spouse is a kind of information that should not be available at the click of a button without the person’s knowledge or consent, as it can be easily used in myriad ways to target someone, from coercion to revenge. When, for example, a case is instituted in the family court, the names of the parties are redacted for the sake of privacy, recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution by the It is therefore the right to every citizen to marry the person of their choice in as much secrecy as they may choose. Therefore, this proposed change also violates the ‘proportionality test’ laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2021).

LGBTQIA+ Community

Indian society has made significant strides towards accepting and embracing relationships between same-sex and transgender persons. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) did not grant marriage equality to the LGBTQIA+ community, it affirmed their right to choose their partners and cohabitate without discrimination or threat of violence. The Court also validated the right of transgender individuals who have affirmed their binary gender upon transition to marry another binary-gendered person. However, the reality is such that many queer and transgender couples have no choice but to keep their union a secret even as they are subjected to routinized violence and manipulation by their families to enter into a heterosexual union. As a result, they are forced out of their homes and are rendered unhoused because of the discrimination and the threats their own families pose to their life and safety. In many such situations of estrangement, couples are tracked down with the aid of the police, and eventually coerced into heterosexual marriages.

The proposed Amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriage Rules makes life even more difficult for these LGBTQIA+ individuals and couples who wish to live together away from their families, and particularly those couples involving transgender persons who enter into a heterosexual marriage, as it mandates the consent of their families to register the solemnized union, and makes them vulnerable to public reprisal at best and social boycott at worst.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the proposed amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006, violate the fundamental rights of individuals and are manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional as it seeks to undermine individual choice and dignity. Contrary to the objectives, this may in fact lead to individuals avoiding legal registration of marriage itself therefore setting us back to the core issue. 

In light of the above, we the undersigned citizens, strongly and emphatically suggest that the proposed amendment be withdrawn. 

Submitted by:

National Alliance for People’s Movements (Gujarat)

National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights (Gujarat)

Below are the names of individuals from Gujarat, who have endorsed the above letter:

1. Smita Pandya, Social Activist, Ahmedabad
2. Meenakshi Joshi, Social- Political Activist, Ahmedabad
3. Deepak Solanki, Samarpan organization & PUCL, Ahmedabad
4. Raghavan Rangarajan, Professor, Ahmedabad
5. Jimmy C. Dabhi, Ph.d, Centre for Culture and Development, Vadodara
6. Ayesha Khan, Sanat Mehta Charitable Trust, Vadodara
7. Indira Hirway, Prof of economics, Ahmedabad
8. Neha Shah, Academic, Ahmedabad
9. Sheba George, Social Activist, Ahmedabad
10. Nirjhari Sinha, Jan Sangharsh Manch, Ahmedabad
11. Nita Mahadev, Social worker, Ahmedabad
12. Cedric Prakash, Human Rights Activist, Ahmedabad
13. Bilal Kagzi, Advocate, Surat
14. Swati Goswami, Communications Consultant, Ahmedabad
15. Sejal Dand, Feminist Activist, Ahmedabad
16. Navdeep Mathur, Faculty, Ahmedabad
17. Priyam Vadaliya, Researcher and Designer, Ahmedabad
18. Rohit Prajapati, Environment Activist, Gujarat
19. Kamal Thakar, Social worker, Vadodara
20. Swati Desai, Activist, Gujarat
21. Anand Mazgaonkar, Activist, Gujarat
22. Rohit Chauhan, Saurashtra Dalit Sangathan, Junagadh
23. Dev Desai, Human Rights activist, Gujarat
24. Heman Oza, Researcher, Ahmedabad
25. Khairunnisha pathan, Social activist, Ahmedabad
26. Gova Rathod, Saurashtra Dalit Sangathan and NAPM, Gujarat
27. Satya Oza, PhD Candidate, Ahmedabad
28. Sejal Dand, Feminist Activist, Ahmedabad
29. Prasad Chacko, National Secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Gujarat
30. Disha, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Surat
31. Harsh Kinger, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Vadodara
32. Harsh Raval, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
33. Hozefa Ujjaini, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
34. Subodh Kumud, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
35. Winona D’souza, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
36. Rakesh Vaghela, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
37. Khush V., National Alliance for People’s Struggle (Urban Struggles Forum), Gujarat
38. Mirkhan Makrani, Peace and Justice, Himatnagar
39. Rafi Malek, Ahmedabad
40. Bhargav Oza, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad

[1] Justice KS Puttuswamy v Union of India, AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 4161, Ganpat Dharma Mengal 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13720

[2] Laxmibai Chandaragi B vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 3 SCC 360

[3] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2021

Related

Parental consent for marriage? Gujarat’s curious political consensus

The post Proposed Amendments to Gujarat Marriage Registration Rules Unconstitutional: NAJAR, NAPM appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The other day, a discussion broke out among ten friends on love marriages—a contentious issue in Gujarat following moves in the corridors of power to regulate them by making parental consent mandatory. One of us claimed that, unlike in the past, nearly 70 percent of weddings today are love marriages. Another person, who had eloped to get married years ago, remarked, “Problems exist everywhere, whether it is a love marriage or an arranged one.”

I asked my friends what they thought about the Gujarat government’s proposal to bring in such a law. The woman and her husband who had themselves run away to get married without parental consent (and are happily married ever since) insisted the proposal was meant only to curb what is described as “love jihad.” “They just want to protect Hindu girls who are lured away by Muslims,” they said.

When I suggested that if such an obligation—parental consent for marriage—were introduced, it would apply to all marriages and not just to the supposed victims of “love jihad,” the woman immediately objected. “That would be bad,” she said. “How can parental consent be made mandatory? It goes against personal freedom and the Constitution.” However, another woman insisted that the government would have to ensure that such a rule applied only to cases of “love jihad,” not to all marriages.

I could not help wondering how deeply anti-Muslim sentiment has seeped into sections of Gujarat’s middle class. Love marriages without parental consent seem acceptable as long as they are within the same religion, but not when a Muslim man seeks to marry a Hindu woman.

Be that as it may, looking at the overall socio-political atmosphere in Gujarat, there appears to be a broad consensus on parental consent. The only difference is that while the BJP rulers speak openly about “love jihad,” the two main opposition parties in the state—the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)—avoid using that phrase.

In a statement in the state legislature recently, Gujarat’s home minister, who is also deputy chief minister, Harsh Sanghavi declared that the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 might need to be amended to make parental consent compulsory for legalising any marriage. Raising the spectre of “love jihad,” he said, “There is no objection to love. But if some Salim posing as a Suresh traps a girl, we will not spare them.”

From all appearances, this seemed more for public consumption. It appeared designed to pacify recent all-male caste gatherings—especially among the numerically strong Patel and Thakor communities—which have expressed concern over a rising number of love marriages taking place without parental approval.

Not without reason. While Sanghavi claimed that in the Panchmahals district there were a very high number of “fake marriage certificates,” particularly in cases of inter-religious weddings—even in rural areas where he said there were “no Muslims or mosques”—the government itself appears reluctant to immediately amend the law.

In fact, it has shown little urgency. The government has announced a 30-day period for public suggestions and recommendations on the proposed changes, after which a review committee will be formed before any amendment is drafted. In effect, this means no immediate change to the law is likely in the coming months.

All indications suggest Sanghavi’s remarks were aimed at placating influential Patel and Thakor caste groups that provide an important electoral support to the ruling party. For quite some time, they have been approaching Gujarat authorities demanding that parental consent be made compulsory for the registration of marriages.

Early this year, a Thakor community meeting was held in Patan where a new “social constitution” was read out and oaths were administered to allegedly eliminate old customs and build a more disciplined society. The gathering announced that elopement marriages would not be accepted and introduced around sixteen new rules, including bans on DJs and sunroof cars at wedding ceremonies. The slogan “One Society, One Custom” was adopted to promote unity.

Notably, the convention was overwhelmingly male. Only one woman was present (photo): the Congress MP Geniben Thakor, who read out the so-called social constitution. A year later, she publicly supported Sanghavi’s declaration about banning marriages without parental consent, describing such a move as “meeting the demands of the current times.”

She argued that some criminal elements were “trapping” young girls into love marriages whose consequences “often prove tragic,” which is why, she said, “all communities have been demanding that the law related to love marriage be amended to make parental consent mandatory, and that villagers be included as witnesses.”

This was not a new position for her. In 2019, as a Congress MLA, she supported a decision by sections of the Thakor community to ban the use of mobile phones by unmarried girls. In 2023, she, along with BJP MLA Fatesinh Chauhan, demanded an amendment to the marriage registration law to make parental signatures mandatory when adult children chose their own partners.

Curious about whether the Congress as a party supported Sanghavi’s proposal, I called up a party spokesperson in Gujarat. Instead of offering a clear position, the spokesperson simply forwarded Geniben’s statement, which I have quoted above. “She is our esteemed MP—the only one from Gujarat,” he said. “There is little reason to believe this is not the Congress view.”

As for AAP, one of the first things its leader Gopal Italia (photo) did after winning the Visavadar assembly seat in a by-election last year was to write to the chief minister demanding a law to prevent young women from eloping with their boyfriends to get married.

Italia, a Patel and one of AAP’s most prominent leaders in Gujarat, argued that the large number of “incidents of girls running away or being made to run away at a legally adult but socially immature age” needed to be stopped. Among other things, he proposed that marriages should be registered only at the permanent residence of the bride.

Calling love marriages a “huge social problem,” he claimed that in many cases girls are “targeted and trapped in a web of love at an innocent age while still studying in school.” According to him, “a well-organised and systematic conspiracy is underway to arrange marriages for runaway couples.” He alleged that such couples are often taken to remote villages in distant districts where marriages are registered for money without proper documentation.

Italia cited what he called data from several villages: in Panchmahal district’s Bhadrala village, he claimed, 560 such marriages were registered; in Amreli district’s Dhampur, Jamka, Mujyasar and Tulindhya villages, the numbers were 1,341, 944, 380 and 258 respectively; and in Anand district’s Sandh, Rel and Vali villages, the figures were 365, 1,193 and 113.

He alleged that these registrations were frequently based on fake documents and involved various irregularities. According to him, “private agents, ‘love mafias’ and gangs”—some allegedly from outside the state—facilitated such “fake marriages,” often exploiting young couples financially and physically in the name of providing protection.

Italia’s letter, written in Gujarati, appeared primarily aimed at reassuring dominant sections of the community he belongs to—the Patels—where, particularly in rural areas, love marriages without parental approval are often viewed with deep disapproval. Notably, neither his letter nor Geniben Thakor’s statement touched upon another pressing social issue within these communities: the skewed sex ratio.

Courtesy: Counterview

The post Parental consent for marriage? Gujarat’s curious political consensus appeared first on SabrangIndia.