No parental veto: Adults’ freedom to marry is not negotiable

THE proposal by the Gujarat government to mandate parental notification — and effectively consent — before registering marriages between consenting adults is a troubling regression. It strikes at the heart of constitutional morality and the autonomy guaranteed under Article 21. The Supreme Court has over the past two decades repeatedly affirmed that the right to choose one’s partner is intrinsic to personal liberty. In Lata Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the court upheld the legitimacy of inter-caste marriages and warned against familial interference. In Shafi Jahan vs KM Ashokan (2018), it declared that an adult’s choice of spouse lies beyond the control of courts or parents. More recently, in Laxmibai Chandaragi vs State of Karnataka (2021), it emphasised that once two adults consent, the law must protect — not obstruct — their union.

Against this jurisprudence, the Gujarat proposal appears to be a regressive step and constitutionally unsound. Marriage registration is an administrative act. It cannot be converted into a mechanism for social surveillance. For many couples, especially interfaith or inter-caste partners, mandatory parental notification may invite harassment, coercion or even violence. The State cannot outsource adult autonomy to family approval.

Proponents argue the measure prevents fraud or coercion. Yet existing criminal laws already address forced marriages and identity deception. Rights cannot be curtailed on speculative grounds. If safety is the concern, the solution lies in robust verification processes, not parental vetoes. Our constitutional project rests on individual dignity over community control. To insert parental consent into adult marriage registration is to privilege custom over liberty. A democracy must trust its citizens as adults. The State’s role is to safeguard freedom of choice, not to stand at the registrar’s door asking for a father’s permission.