None of their business – The Times of India

In 2018, Supreme Court ruled any assembly intended to scuttle a marriage between two consenting adults is “absolutely illegal”. It laid down norms to protect individuals who had chosen their partner, a fundamental right under right to life & personal liberty (Article 21), and freedoms of expression, association, & movement (Article 19). It barely needs repeating that the Hisar village that “resolved” to ban love marriages, is acting illegally. Reportedly, villagers were spooked after three couples married within the village. As coercion works, opinion was allegedly “unanimous”, and so-called elders were unequivocal about trampling couples’ rights, making decisions ruinous to young lives – all illegally. But who in authority – elected panchayat, SDM/DM, police or district court responded, to protect individual liberties? None.And that’s always been why khap and similar extra-judicial caste/gotra/faith panchayats retain power to crack down on offspring and families, to the extent of murder, grotesquely misnamed ‘honour killings’. Police stand by, netas are shifty, and whatever the gripe – same gotra, different caste or different faith – north to west, such diktats take root. Fear is the key. Which is what makes Karnataka’s new law, ‘Freedom of Choice in Marriage & Prohibition of Crimes in Name of Honour & Tradition’, timely legislation. The law says proactive steps are required to “ensure state authorities are under legal obligation” to safeguard and uphold constitutional rights. It leaves no room for misinterpretation – “The consent of the person’s parents, family, caste or clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a marriage.” It legislates into statute SC’s 2018 order to prohibit unlawful assembly. It makes it incumbent on SDMs and DMs to provide individuals protection. Earlier, a similar bill in Rajasthan was returned by governor.Problem is that for sections of India, to this day, marriage is about perpetuating patriarchy and caste order. Which is why UCC in some states mandates parental notification and consent for marriages and live-in relationships. Where the state is silent and/or makes it difficult for individuals to exercise their right to marry a person of choice, it must fall on SC – again – to step in, and uphold fundamental rights.

Disclaimer: Views expressed above are the author’s own.