Supreme Court rejects PIL challenging Special Marriage Act provision requiring notice of intended marriage

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the provisions of the Special Marriage Act requiring publication of couples' details 30 days before the intended marriage in the public domain [Athira R Menon v. Union of India]..A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi dismissed a plea that challenged these provisions for being violative of citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution."How is this PIL jurisdiction? Act has been there since 1954. Where's your cause of action?" the Bench asked.It then proceeded to dismiss the matter."Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we find no reason to entertain in this matter as a PIL at the instance of the petitioner.The petition stands dismissed as such," the Court ordered. .The provisions under challenge require parties to the marriage to publish their private details, open for public scrutiny, 30 days before the intended marriage. The law allows anyone to submit objections to the marriage and empowers the marriage officer to inquire into such objections..The petition, settled by filed through advocate Sriram Parakkat, highlighted that such a requirement was absent in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and customary laws in Islam. Thereby, it was challenged as being discriminatory and violative of Article 14.“The petition seeks to commiserate the marriage laws to one that is more in tune with just decisional autonomy of two individuals and less to do with social sanction of their marriage,” the PIL said..The right to privacy was also invoked in this context, stating that the provisions failed the three-tier test laid down by the top court in the case of Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India since there was no legitimate state interest being protected by the publication of personal and intimate details of parties to a marriage.“Marriage reflects a private decision taken by two consenting adults and the SMA was formulated to provide a secular form of marriage.”.Additionally, it was submitted that the very right of a couple to be the decision makers of their marriage was being hampered by the State by making their personal details accessible to everyone.“Publication of personal details often might have a chilling effect on the right to marry. In other words, couples are asked to waive the right to privacy to exercise the right to marry.”.The petition was drawn by advocates KR Sripathi and Anupama Subramanian. Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala appeared for the petitioner. [Read Order]