Gujarat move on parental consent is regressive

When a government demands parental permission for consenting adults to marry, it breaches several red lines. It infringes on the private lives of citizens; undermines civil liberties; infantilises women by presuming that they are uniquely susceptible to deception and incapable of independent choice or judgement. The proposal by the Gujarat government to mandate parental consent for the registration of marriages stands to institutionalise all these unacceptable intrusions. Dressed up as a shield against “love jihad”, the Bhupendra Patel government’s amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, also threaten to deepen communal fault lines. This regressive step in the name of “protecting dignity of girls and sanatan dharma” by a BJP government sits uneasily with the Prime Minister’s frequent invocations and projections of “nari shakti” as a pillar of India’s development, and his government’s claims that it is working for “sabka Vishwas”.

While the Gujarat government’s bid to constrict individual freedom and legitimise the politically contrived spectre of “love jihad” is outrageous, it is unfortunately not an aberration. Across states, suspicion and prejudice threatens to recast families, communities and public authorities as self-appointed gatekeepers, treating consensual adult relationships as dangers to be contained, and as problems to be solved. A majoritarian anxiety, cloaked in the language of care, entrenches control, especially over women. In Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, laws purportedly targeting “forced conversions” have worked as dragnets around interfaith unions. The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code compels couples in live-in relationships to register with authorities. Each measure, presented as a safeguard, has expanded state scrutiny and invasion of intimate spaces.

From Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) to Shafin Jahan v Asokan K M (2018) to Laxmibai Chandaragi B v State of Karnataka (2021), constitutional jurisprudence has consistently interpreted Article 21’s promise of protection of life and personal liberty to include the freedom to choose one’s partner without external interference. In judgment after judgment, the apex court has made clear that neither family nor community can claim a veto over adult choice, that the state’s duty is to protect this autonomy, not subject it to paternalistic scrutiny. The Gujarat government’s proposal marks a regressive turn in the state’s relationship with adult citizens. It must be scrapped .