In a significant decision, the Supreme Court today ordered that the case relating to the deemed conversion of women into the religion of the husband under the Special Marriage Act be heard by a Constitution Bench..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud heard Senior Counsel Indira Jaising – who appeared for appellant Goolrokh M Gupta – before deciding to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench..Advocates Percy Gandhy and Siddharth Bhatnagar appeared for the respondents along with a team from Karanjawala & Co. led by Partner Debmalya C Banerjee..A Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court’s controversial ruling that a woman who enters into wedlock outside her religion is deemed to have changed her religion to that of her husband, thereby losing the right to practice her own religion..The petitioner, Goolrokh M Gupta, has challenged the majority opinion in Goolrokh M Gupta, Maiden Name Goolrokh A Contractor v. Burjor Pardiwala, President & 8 Ors., delivered by the Gujarat High Court on March 23, 2012..Goolrokh, a Parsi Zoroastrian, married a Hindu man in 1991 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and continued practicing Zoroastrianism. In her petition, Goolrokh cites the example of one Dilbar Valvi, a Parsi Zoroastrian woman who married a Hindu. Due to this marriage, Dilbar Valvi was denied the right to attend the funeral ceremonies of her mother at the “Tower of Silence” Fire temple by the trustees of Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust (Respondents)..The respondents denied this on the ground that Valvi had married outside her religion. Goolrokh then filed a writ in the Gujarat High Court contending that she would also meet the same fate, unless there was an appropriate direction in this regard..Goolrokh had, therefore, asked the High Court for directions to the Respondents to allow her to enter and worship in the Fire Temple and to participate in the funeral ceremonies of her old parents at the Tower of Silence..The High Court ruled that the petitioner ceased to be a Parsi Zoroastrian on account of her marriage to a non-Parsi (even though she married under the Act) and, consequently, her prayers on the basis of her status as a Parsi Zoroastrian did not require consideration..This verdict has been challenged on the ground that:.“The Special Marriage Act, 1954 was enacted as a special legislation to provide for a special form of marriage by registration which does not require either party to the marriage to renounce his/ her religion.”.The petitioner has contended that the decision of the Gujarat High Court is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. She has also submitted that Section 4 of the Act, which lays down conditions for solemnization of marriage between a man and a woman,.“Has been made to enable two persons belonging to two different religions to solemnize their marriage without either of them renouncing his/her religion or converting into the religion of the to-be spouse”..Goolrokh has, therefore, challenged the proposition of the Gujarat High Court that the wife would automatically acquire the religion of her husband on marriage, alleging that it amounted to the denial of her fundamental right to freely profess and practice her religion as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution..Alleging that the interpretation of the High Court was tantamount to relegating “women to the class of cattle”, she has also contended,.“The feudal concept that a woman loses her legal identity on marriage, and it merges with the identity of her husband, is no longer acceptable today.”.Besides praying for appropriate orders, she has also sought for staying the operation of the Gujarat High Court judgment as interim relief and to allow her to attend all religious ceremonies at the Fire Temple as well as the Tower of Silence..Click here to download the Bar & Bench Android App
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court today ordered that the case relating to the deemed conversion of women into the religion of the husband under the Special Marriage Act be heard by a Constitution Bench..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud heard Senior Counsel Indira Jaising – who appeared for appellant Goolrokh M Gupta – before deciding to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench..Advocates Percy Gandhy and Siddharth Bhatnagar appeared for the respondents along with a team from Karanjawala & Co. led by Partner Debmalya C Banerjee..A Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court’s controversial ruling that a woman who enters into wedlock outside her religion is deemed to have changed her religion to that of her husband, thereby losing the right to practice her own religion..The petitioner, Goolrokh M Gupta, has challenged the majority opinion in Goolrokh M Gupta, Maiden Name Goolrokh A Contractor v. Burjor Pardiwala, President & 8 Ors., delivered by the Gujarat High Court on March 23, 2012..Goolrokh, a Parsi Zoroastrian, married a Hindu man in 1991 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and continued practicing Zoroastrianism. In her petition, Goolrokh cites the example of one Dilbar Valvi, a Parsi Zoroastrian woman who married a Hindu. Due to this marriage, Dilbar Valvi was denied the right to attend the funeral ceremonies of her mother at the “Tower of Silence” Fire temple by the trustees of Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust (Respondents)..The respondents denied this on the ground that Valvi had married outside her religion. Goolrokh then filed a writ in the Gujarat High Court contending that she would also meet the same fate, unless there was an appropriate direction in this regard..Goolrokh had, therefore, asked the High Court for directions to the Respondents to allow her to enter and worship in the Fire Temple and to participate in the funeral ceremonies of her old parents at the Tower of Silence..The High Court ruled that the petitioner ceased to be a Parsi Zoroastrian on account of her marriage to a non-Parsi (even though she married under the Act) and, consequently, her prayers on the basis of her status as a Parsi Zoroastrian did not require consideration..This verdict has been challenged on the ground that:.“The Special Marriage Act, 1954 was enacted as a special legislation to provide for a special form of marriage by registration which does not require either party to the marriage to renounce his/ her religion.”.The petitioner has contended that the decision of the Gujarat High Court is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. She has also submitted that Section 4 of the Act, which lays down conditions for solemnization of marriage between a man and a woman,.“Has been made to enable two persons belonging to two different religions to solemnize their marriage without either of them renouncing his/her religion or converting into the religion of the to-be spouse”..Goolrokh has, therefore, challenged the proposition of the Gujarat High Court that the wife would automatically acquire the religion of her husband on marriage, alleging that it amounted to the denial of her fundamental right to freely profess and practice her religion as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution..Alleging that the interpretation of the High Court was tantamount to relegating “women to the class of cattle”, she has also contended,.“The feudal concept that a woman loses her legal identity on marriage, and it merges with the identity of her husband, is no longer acceptable today.”.Besides praying for appropriate orders, she has also sought for staying the operation of the Gujarat High Court judgment as interim relief and to allow her to attend all religious ceremonies at the Fire Temple as well as the Tower of Silence..Click here to download the Bar & Bench Android App