Why in news?

• The High Court of Gujarat has recently clamped down the fundamental right of a married woman’s freedom of religion. According to Article 25 of the constitution, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.

What was the case about?

• Goolrukh Gupta, a woman professing the Parsi Zoroastrian faith got married to a non-Parsi Zoroastrian.
• The parsi religious trust has been obstructing her to profess her religion because of her marriage to other religion person.
• She appealed to the High Court of Gujarat to be able to continue to practise and profess her religion.
• But the court has ruled that a non-Parsi under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 would have acquired the religious status of the husband.
• This has brought the question of her fundamental right to freedom of religion as guaranteed in the Constitution.

What was the lacuna behind the judgement?

• The court has made reference to the “doctrine of coverture”.
• The doctrine says that a woman’s legal identity is subsumed by that of her husband upon marriage.
• It considers the wife and husband as one person (the husband being the person for all intents and purposes).

What is Special Marriage Act, 1954?

• The act was enacted to allow any woman and man, professing any religion, to be legally married without renouncing their respective religions or converting to another.
• The act had replaced the earlier 1872 law, which required that both renounce their religions in order for an inter-religious marriage to take effect.
• The act of 1954 gives women the right to retain their religious identity.
• It also states that a woman’s caste does not change upon marriage to a person belonging to another caste.
• It allows for the separation of the institutions of marriage and religion in the interest of upholding the individual’s rights.
• It follows the secular nature of the constitution.

What lies ahead?

• Clearly, the judgement has subverted the autonomy of women.
• Now, petitioner had to approach the Supreme Court in order to ensure her rights and a constitution bench is to hear her case. It shows the inequalities, prejudice that women face within the institutions of religion and marriage.