Key Points
The Gujarat government has proposed amendments to make parental consent compulsory for marriage registration, linking the move to alleged cases of “love jihad”.
The draft rules mandate notarised applications, extensive documentation, parental details and a 30-day registration period, with parents to be notified within 10 working days.
Legal experts and Supreme Court rulings emphasise that adult choice in marriage is protected under Article 21, raising constitutional concerns over the proposal.
The Gujarat government has proposed amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, mandating parental consent and notification as part of a revised marriage registration process. The move, tabled in the State Assembly on 20 February 2026 under Rule 44, has been framed by the government as a measure to prevent alleged misuse of the existing system and address concerns related to “love jihad”.
Deputy Chief Minister Harsh Sanghavi described the proposal as a “matter of public importance”, stating that while the government is “not against love marriages”, it seeks to “protect the dignity of girls and sanatan dharma”. He alleged that “under the name of love jihad, a game is being played in the state” and said a “strong armour” is needed for young women.
Referring to specific districts including Panchmahal, Banaskantha, Navsari and Mehsana, Sanghavi cited instances of alleged irregularities. “If any Salim changes his identity and becomes Suresh to trap innocent girls, he will be taught a lesson for life,” he said in the Assembly.
Under the proposed amendments, couples seeking to marry would need to submit a notarised application signed by both parties and two witnesses, accompanied by identity proof issued by the Central or state government, such as Aadhaar cards, passports or driving licences. Additional documents would include birth certificates or school leaving certificates, wedding invitations, passport-sized photographs of the couple and witnesses, and a wedding photograph.
Applicants must also furnish names, addresses, Aadhaar numbers and contact details of their parents. And most importantly, a declaration stating whether the bride and groom have informed their parents about the marriage would be mandatory.
Once the Assistant Registrar is satisfied with the application, parents of both parties would be informed within 10 working days through electronic means such as WhatsApp or physical communication. The application would then be forwarded to the Registrar of the concerned district or taluka. Registration would take place 30 days after the Registrar confirms that all requirements have been fulfilled. A dedicated online portal is to be created to upload and track all details.
The government has invited objections and suggestions from the public for a 30-day period. A committee will review responses before finalising the amendments. Minister of State for Law and Justice Kaushik Vekariya reportedly held around 30 meetings with social organisations before arriving at the proposed reforms.
The proposal follows a memorandum submitted in December 2025 by members of the Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti to Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel seeking compulsory parental consent for marriage registration.
According to The Times of India, several caste and community groups have also raised concerns about marriages without parental approval. In Nand village in Kheda district’s Mahudha taluka, a gram sabha recently passed a resolution imposing social boycott on couples who marry against their families’ wishes. Such couples are barred from community facilities, religious gatherings and social functions and may face fines.
While the government has framed the move as procedural reform aimed at plugging loopholes, legal experts argue that mandatory parental consent conflicts with constitutional protections of adult autonomy. Speaking to The Indian Express, senior advocate Jayna Kothari said requiring parental consent is “essentially an attempt to curb interfaith and intercaste marriages”.
“States have schemes promoting intercaste and interfaith marriages on one hand, but create legal barriers to prevent them. In the process, this move undermines the agency of women,” she said.
Despite this, the proposal has found support across political lines in the State. Isudan Gadhvi, Gujarat unit president of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), said his party supported the amendment, stating that young women can be misled and that protecting society is a duty. AAP MLA Hemant Ahir and BJP MLA Lavingji Thakor welcomed the proposed changes in the Assembly.
Congress MP Geniben Thakor also expressed public support, saying the issue was not about targeting any community but about addressing modern challenges where young girls may “get carried away”.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, a right that the Supreme Court has interpreted to include freedom to choose a partner without external interference. In its 2021 ruling in Laxmibai Chandaragi B v State of Karnataka, the SC reiterated that consent of “the family or the community or the clan” is not necessary once two adults decide to marry. The judgment observed that “the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity”.
In 2018, in Shafi Jahan v KM Ashokan, the SC upheld the right of an adult woman to marry a person of her choice and choose her religion, overruling a Kerala High Court verdict that had annulled an interfaith marriage by invoking parens patriae jurisdiction.
In 2006, in Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, the SC recognised that families could be sites of violence and extended protection to intercaste couples. High Courts have also struck down procedural barriers. The Delhi High Court in 2009 and the Allahabad High Court in 2021 set aside the mandatory 30-day notice requirement under the Special Marriage Act, citing invasion of privacy.
As recently as 16 February 2026, the Gujarat High Court allowed a 16-year-old girl who refused to return to her parents to remain in government care after they objected to her relationship, although the couple expressed willingness to wait until they attained marriageable age.
The proposal has thus opened a debate that extends beyond administrative procedure. On one side is the State’s assertion that stricter scrutiny and parental involvement are necessary safeguards. On the other is a body of judicial precedent affirming that adult individuals have the right to marry without parental or community approval.
With the 30-day public consultation underway, the final shape of the amendments will depend on the responses received. The outcome is likely to test the balance between legislative intent and constitutional protections of personal liberty
[DS]
Suggested Reading:
