Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale on Monday expressed its displeasure on the fact that even before the plea challenging the inter-faith marriage committee was heard by the court, it was circulated in the media. The bench said that the petitioner should not waste the court’s time if the plea wants to be challenged in the media.

“How is it that even before we have seen this petition, every media person has seen it? If you want to test this in a media forum, then don’t waste our time. Every media forum has seen this. If you want them to decide, we couldn’t care less," the bench said.

Moreover, the division bench said that the writ petition filed by the MLA was of the nature of a PIL which is to be taken up by the Acting Chief Justice. Therefore, the bench granted liberty to convert the writ petition into a PIL.

“Roster is defined by Acting Chief Justice. It is set by him ( Acting Chief Justice). It has been held that when a matter is taken up outside the roster, the decision is rendered in nullity,” the bench noted. 

While passing the order the court said:

“Prima facie, this petition is in the nature of PIL. Other than the name and address of the petitioner, there is no statement of fact about the petitioner. The petitioner is not concerned with the subject matter. He may have public interest but then it is open to him to take it up in an appropriate manner."

The plea filed by Samajwadi Party MLA Rais Shiekh stated that the committee formed through the government resolution is empowered to collect information on individuals who have done inter-caste marriages from religious institutions, the registration department, and the stamp duty department which is violative of the right to privacy.

The petition, therefore, stated that such a committee is in contravention and violative of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (forbidding discrimination), 21 (right to life which includes the right to privacy), and 25 (right to freedom of religion) of the constitution of India amongst other articles. 

The MLA further submitted in his plea that such government resolution consigns women to a second-class status depending on who they marry.

“The government resolution is subversive of the principle of equality, guaranteed under Article 14 of the constitution of India. The resolution not only essentially consigns women to second-class status depending on who they marry, but also puts their life, limb, privacy and liberty at peril, contrary to the constitutional mandate of Article 21 merely because they chose and exercised their right to choose their life partner outside their caste and/or faith. The right of women cannot be stripped merely because they choose something which departs from what is deemed “normal” by her parents or the patriarchal society,” the plea read.

The plea further state that the government resolution cites the Shradha Walker Murder Case for setting up a such committee, but the state failed to clarify if they will track inter-faith live-in relationships.

“That even as the state government cites a brutal murder as the basis for its resolution, it failed to clarify whether the “tracking” as envisaged will also include inter-faith live-in relationships. If that is the case, the extent of intrusion into the personal lives of individuals by the State will have no checks and bounds and would be unlimited and harassment to such couples,” the plea stated.

Case Title: Rais Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra