NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, stated that no state government can interfere in interfaith marriages between consenting adults.
The apex court has repeatedly emphasised that two consenting adults are fully entitled to choose their partner—even across caste or religious lines — without interference from the State or their families
The apex court has granted bail to a man who was booked by the Uttarakhand Police under the anti-conversion law for marrying a woman of another faith.
The order was passed after the top court overruled a Uttarakhand High Court judgement for not granting bail to a Muslim man who spent six months in jail for marrying a Hindu woman. A police complaint was filed against him after certain right-wing affiliated organisations and individuals objected to their union.
The marriage was conducted with the permission of their families. The Muslim man had also furnished an affidavit a day after the marriage, affirming he would not force his wife to convert and she is free to follow her faith.
In its judgement, the apex court observed that the respondent state government cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families.
In February this year, the Uttarakhand High Court had refused to enlarge the ‘accused’ Aman Siddiqui alias Aman Chaudhary on bail, prompting him to file an appeal before the top court.
An FIR was lodged with Rudrapur Police Station of Udham Singh Nagar district against the appellant under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and Sections 318(4) and 319 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023.
The appellant’s counsel contended that a frivolous complaint was lodged since the accused married a woman who follows a different faith. Further, it was submitted that the marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage, and the families of both sides voluntarily decided to arrange the marriage of the appellant with the woman.
The FIR was registered soon after certain persons and organisations objected to the inter-faith marriage. Although the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant, he remained in jail for nearly six months.
It court clarified that the pendency of the criminal proceeding against the appellant would not come in the way of him and his wife residing together on their own volition.
“In the circumstances, we find that this is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted to the appellant herein,” a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chand Sharma ordered.
Allowing the appeal, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench ordered the appellant to be produced before the trial court concerned as early as possible, which will release him on bail, subject to such conditions as the trial court may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the criminal case. It also directed the appellant to extend “complete cooperation” in the ensuing trial and not to misuse his liberty.
“Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the appellant,” the top court cautioned. — With inputs from IANS
