Introduction
“Liberty is the Right to Choose and Freedom is the result of the Right Choice”- a rather apt and integral saying that goes unsaid in the domain of an individual’s fundamental right but is rather coloured with contentions capturing a poignant place in this contemporary era of everything being fair in love and war. Article 21 as enshrined in our Indian constitution accounts for this golden right of choice rendering “Right to Life and Personal Liberty” as ‘The Heart of Fundamental Rights’ being evergreen in times to come. It is these rights which have been acknowledged as the soul of our constitution primarily owing to the essentiality it lends to elevating human existence and social development. The ambit of this primordial right incorporated in Part III of our Indian Constitution has been ever-growing and has gained momentum concerning various aspects of an individual’s life thereby serving as no less than a fundamental requirement of human life and subsistence[1].
To delve deeper into this aspect of the Right to Choice emanating from the” heart and soul” of our Indian Constitution, we can ponder and thus look at the question of present-day “SELF RESPECT MARRIAGES”. It is synonymous with the term “Suyamaiyathai” or “Seerthirutha” as recognized in Tamil Nadu and are those marriages that do not call for public solemnization or declaration but are rather undertaken in the presence of close relatives, friends, and family members wherein the two people performing the ritual declare each other to be husband and wife in a language understood by them followed by putting a ring on each other’s fingers, garland around each other’s necks or it may involve tying a “thali” or mangal sutra.
Historical Evolution and Origin
The Self Respect movement originated in South India. It can trace its origin back to being one of the most intrinsic human rights movements in 1925 with S Ramanathan being its founder to bring about social equality across the oppressed and discriminating society based on casteism. It was however ‘Periyar’ or EV Ramaswamy who spearheaded the same with a full-fledged momentum to grant a meaningful shape to the same. He began by comprehending conventional marriages as mere financial arrangements that often gave way to causing great debt through dowry demands. It was also regarded as being caste endogamy to preserve the “purity” of its upcoming breeds thereby reinforcing casteism and its segregation. He was an ardent believer of the principle of “self-respect” as evident from his widespread quote-‘We are only fit to think of self-respect only when the notion of superior and inferior caste is banished from our land.’[2]
Legal Recognition and Framework
The Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, of 1954 deeply resonate with the idea and substantial legal backing of marriages in India wherein the former adheres to primarily the Hindu customs while the latter has centred its focus upon rendering a secular alternative accommodating interfaith and nonreligious unions as well. The principle of individual autonomy and equality between partners was eschewed largely via the religious ceremonies incorporated in the Special Marriage Act, of 1954[3]as is evident herein via the following provisions-
Section 4- Secular nature of the Act which calls for mutual consent and eligibility being the primordial facet i.e. free from the constraints of what we follow and practice as religious customs and rituals thereby aligning with the principle of equality and personal autonomy as enshrined in self-respect marriages[4].
Section 12- Solemnization of Marriage at the office of the marriage registrar or such other place as the parties deem fit and desire within a reasonable distance allows for a simple yet secular marriage ceremony. This ensures an absence of elaborate religious rituals and ceremonies but rather delves deeper into the aspect of mutual consent which is in turn in line with the Suyamayathai[5].
However, it was the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955[6]that rendered legal validity and recognition to such marriages within the Hindu community making it all the more crucial provision of ensuring equality. The state of Tamil Nadu introduced and enacted the same through a legislative amendment in 1967 via the incorporation of Section 7-A to reflect upon the ideals of social justice and reform. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1967[7] was thus strictly applicable to this specific region and excluded other states from its ambit making it more of a region-specific legislation. The section deals with the exclusive nature of the form of solemnization essential for such marriages which must be in the presence of close friends and relatives with no form of in-length religious ceremonies as required for conventional marriages. Furthermore, it also rendered such a solemnization of not disclosing it to the public declaration as a valid and legal form under the law thereby grating it immunity under our legislative background in its unsaid way. It therefore embodies the spirit of the preamble of our constitution i.e. justice, liberty, and equality fostering a more utopian society to reside in.
Judicial Adventurism
The question that then appeared in the face of legal challenge was its validity which can be explored via the following judicial pronouncements over the years surrounding the Indian landscape.
In the landmark case of Ilavarsan vs Superintendent of Police[8], two contrasting views have played their role about such marriages with the Madras High Court denying the same and the Supreme Court upholding the validity of it on the other hand. The petitioner Ilavarsan herein was engaged in a contract of marriage with his wife on account of performing ‘Suyamariyathai’ in Tamil Nadu in the absence of a Brahmin priest as the officiator who at the time of filing this writ of habeas corpus was under the ‘illegal custody’ of her parents which he wanted to overturn.
The Madras High Court refused to acknowledge it and declared that an advocate has no right whatsoever to grant a certificate in the process of solemnizing such a self-respect marriage and thereby upheld its 2014 judgment of Balakrishnan Pandian vs Superintendent of Police[9].
The case was dismissed by citing and quoting the above which regarded how the same cannot be solemnized in secrecy by an advocate and rendering the view of how the very idea of performing marriages with public declaration and celebration is nothing but to recognize the status of a marital couple by the world and society at large which makes ‘suyamariyathai’ runs antithetical to the same and is thus invalid in itself.
The Supreme Court took a different perspective when the case was administered therein recognizing its legal validity thereby overturning the 2014 judgment of the Madras High Court as well as relying upon its 2001 judgment of Nagalingam vs Sivagami[10]which upheld how there was no blanket ban on the advocates to solemnize a marriage under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriages Act[11]. The court herein accepted and gave way to such self-respectful marriages wherein the saptpadi or seven steps integral to Hindu marriage did not take place as still a valid marriage. This therefore served as a precedent encompassing the idea as to how the presence of a priest is not a pre-requisite for every marriage to be declared legally valid. It all comes a full circle to where we started i.e. Right to Choice beginning from the first instance of the French Revolution in 1978 to the present day Preamble and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[12].
Conclusion Remarks
The Self Respect Marriages are therefore what formulates a part of Article 21[13] incorporating the Right to Choice and the Right to privacy as rather reasonable and pivotal rights on their own. The jurisprudence of India however took a long time to recognize the same owing to lack of clarity posited with no explicit mention of it by our constituent makers. It is the independence of the judiciary from other organs which acquired a central place in adapting the same and making it our own in no time thereby restoring the faith of people in the Judiciary in specific and Democracy as a whole.
Author(s) Name: Vidhi Kawrani (Nirma University)
References:
[1] Nisha Gandhi, ‘Expanding and Evolving the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India with the Developing Scenario’ (2022), Volume II Issue IV, Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law <https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/EXPANDING-AND-EVOLVING-THE-AMBIT-OF-ARTICLE-21-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-WITH-THE-DEVELOPING-SCENARIO.pdf> accessed 03 June 2024
[2] Bhadra Sinha, ‘Self-respect marriages in Tamil Nadu don’t need public solemnization, says SC’ (The Print, 28 August 2023) <https://theprint.in/judiciary/self-respect-marriages-in-tamil-nadu-dont-need-public-solemnisation-says-sc/1735294/> accessed 03 June 2024
[3] Special Marriage Act 1954
[4] Special Marriage Act 1954, s 4
[5] Special Marriage Act 1954, s 12
[6] Hindu Marriage Act 1955, s 7-A
[7] Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1967
[8] Ilavarsan vs Supreintendent of Police [2023] SCC Online SC 1120
[9] Balakrishnan Pandian vs Superintendent of Police [2014] SCC Online Mad 8815
[10] Nagalingam vs Sivagami [2001] 7 SCC 487
[11] Khadija Khan, ‘What the Supreme Court order on the validity of ‘self-respect’ marriages says’ (The Indian Express, 29 august 2023) <https://vajiramandravi.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/media/2023/8/30/13/13/20/Supreme_Court_order_on_the_validity_of_self-respect_marriages.pdf> accessed 03 June 2024
[12] Constitution of India, art.21
[13] Constitution of India, art. 21
