Premium
This is an archive article published on December 8, 2017

Woman retains religion after marriage: Supreme Court

The court also asked a Parsi trust in Gujarat to explore an amicable settlement regarding the demand of a Parsi woman, who had married a Hindu, to allow her to attend the last rites of her parents when the need arises.

Woman retains religion after marriage: Supreme Court The Supreme Court of India (Express Photo/Premnath Pandey)

A woman does not lose her religious identity after marrying a man from another faith until she converts on her own, the Supreme Court said on Thursday.

The court also asked a Parsi trust in Gujarat to explore an amicable settlement regarding the demand of a Parsi woman, who had married a Hindu, to allow her to attend the last rites of her parents when the need arises.

Hearing a petition filed by the woman, Goolrokh M Gupta, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra asked the trust counsel Gopal Subramanium to apprise it on December 14 if she could be allowed to enter the Tower of Silence, where the dead of the community are laid to rest.

Story continues below this ad

“You must tell the trustees… rigidity is not always a correct principle of understanding a concept of religion. Less rigidity attracts more…,” the CJI told Subramanium.

Goolrokh had married a Hindu but retained her faith. She moved the apex court against a 2010 Gujarat High Court order that upheld the Parsi customary law that a woman marrying outside the community loses her religious rights as a Parsi.

She had approached the High Court against the directions of community elders that Parsis marrying outside the community will not be allowed to enter the Tower of Silence as they are deemed to have taken their spouse’s religion upon marriage. She apprehended that the same fate may fall upon her when her parents pass away, and sought relief from the court.

The Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, observed that “there is no law which says that a woman loses religious identity after marrying a man from another faith”.

Story continues below this ad

Justice Sikri said the “purpose of Special Marriage Act is that two persons can marry and retain their identity”. The CJI added that “only she can take away that right by her own choice”.

CJI Misra said, “The question is what will prevail — the Constitutional identity of a woman or religious beliefs.” On Goolrokh, he added, “Unless there is a conversion to another religion, there must be a presumption that she retains her religion.”

Appearing for the appellant, senior counsel Indira Jaising said the practice was not part of Parsi personal law but can at best be called a custom. However, it fails the test of continuity which is fundamental to a custom, and also the apex court had laid down that any custom must past the test of public policy, morality and decency, she said.

To this the CJI said, “Custom cannot be decided in a writ petition. Let’s not get there. Let’s limit to the question of the lady today.”

Story continues below this ad

“A man marries outside the community and is permitted to retain his religious identity and a woman is not allowed to marry outside and retain her religious identity. How can a woman be debarred…,” the bench asked.

The court asked a Parsi lawyer, who was present in court, about the practice among the community in Delhi. She replied that in Delhi the trustees never prevented any woman who married outside the community from entering the Temple of Fire or Tower of Silence. At this, the bench said the issue then appeared to be limited to the trust in question. Jaising replied that opinion was divided in the said trust, with some members favouring Goolrokh’s entry.

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement