Dev Kumar, Jindal Global Law School
Introduction
Article 25 of the Constitution1 guarantees freedom to profess, practice and propagate any religion as well as protects their social welfare and reform however some individuals interpret it in a sense that renders it meaningless. The aforementioned article ensures that the religious beliefs, practices, and customs of the citizens of the country are also protected. Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act2 has established “customs” as a rule which is followed for a long time and has obtained the force of law among people of the Hindu community. However, it hasn’t given the details as to what can be considered as “customs.” By the general understanding, “Custom” is a rule or a tradition which is being followed for a long time such as “Saptapadi” under the Hindu Religion, which is an essential rite of a Hindu Marriage Ceremony whereas Bigamy was considered as an “accepted practice” before the establishment of Hindu Marriage Act. This fine line between customs and accepted practice along with Article 25 of the constitution has been discussed in the case at hand.
The appellant, an engineer, was married to respondent no. 3 and had a daughter with her. The couple, however, did not have a son after that because the respondent began to miscarry and the medical officer determined that she was incapable of carrying a boy. The appellant and his father felt that there would be no salvation if they did not have a son since their religious practises would be unfulfilled, thus the appellant chose to marry for the second time in order to produce a son. Respondent no.3 agreed to this initially however changed her mind later and denied this proposal. Invoking Rule 27 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, the state government ordered the appellant not to marry the second wife without first receiving its approval. Soon after, the appellant and his father's petitions were dismissed as the Hindu Marriage Act went into effect, criminalising bigamy under Section 173. The appellant then challenged the validity of Rule 27 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, along with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act since, according to the appellant, it infringes Article 25 of the constitution i.e., freedom of religion and disturbs the religious beliefs and practices of the Hindu community. Their petition was dismissed on the grounds that the challenged provision, the Hindu Marriage Act, is perfectly valid, and that the legislature of the country is the best judge of what is necessary for the welfare of the country, and that the Hindu Marriage Act does not violate Article 25 of the constitution.
Comments