Gauhati HC Seeks State Response on Muslim Marriage Registration Act Challenge

Last Updated on December 5, 2024 by Amit Patra

The Gauhati High Court issued a notice to the Assam government in a significant legal challenge touching the heart of religious practices and governmental regulation: the highly contentious Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024.
The case was filed by the All Assam Muslim Marriages and Divorces Registrar and Kazi Association, challenging the validity of this new legislation amending the 1935 Act for the purposes of registration of marriages performed by Muslims. A Division Bench of Justices Lanusungkum Jamir and Kaushik Goswami directed that the state respond within four weeks considering the complex interaction of religious tradition and statutes involved in the matter.
The core of the legal challenge, essentially, lies in a fundamental alteration brought in by the Act to marriage registration processes. In attempting to solve issues like child marriage and polygamy through compulsory registration with the government under the 2024 law, the petitioners argued that it intrudes on religious autonomy and undermines the traditional role of qazis in performing marriage registrations.
The petitioners have contended that the new law violates constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26, which provide freedom to practice religion and manage religious affairs. They say marriage and divorce are enshrined in religious rituals, and interference by the state may infringe these basic rights.
Interestingly, SKALNA did not wholly reject any reform imperative. It rather suggested an amendment in the existing 1935 Act by bringing uniformity in the age of marriage to 21 for males and 18 for females. This nuance makes their position even more fascinating because, though modern in approach, the traditional mode of registration should be conserved.
On the face of it, the motive of the state seems to be bringing in one single, transparent system of marriage registration to save the vulnerable, especially women and children. However, this litigation has thrown up the critical issue of balancing governmental oversight with religious community autonomy.
The case, as it unravels, promises to detail with aplomb the tightrope balancing between pan-state regulations and religious mores, arguably setting a strong precedent for similar legislative interventions across the subcontinent.