Picture this: you are eligible to vote the moment you turn eighteen. You can choose your government, influence public policy, and shape the destiny of the nation. Yet, when it comes to choosing your life partner, the State now proposes that you must first submit proof that you have informed your parents and thereafter, the authorities will independently notify them about your marriage.
This is what has been proposed in Gujarat. The Deputy Chief Minister, Harsh Sanghavi, stated that the State Government intends to introduce changes to the marriage registration procedures under the Gujarat Marriage Registration Act, 2006. Certain sections of the community have expressed support for this proposal. Further, the Gujarat Registration of Marriages (Amendment) Bill, 2026 has reportedly already been introduced by MLA Hemant Khawa in furtherance of this objective.
According to the proposal, parents are to be formally incorporated into the marriage registration process. The bride and groom would be required to submit a declaration affirming that they have informed their parents about the marriage, along with identity proofs, phone numbers, and residential details of their parents. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar would notify the parents within ten days of receiving the application. Only upon compliance with these requirements would the marriage be registered.
From the lens of the Constitution of India ("Constitution"), the judiciary has repeatedly upheld the right to marry a person of one's choice. The choice of a partner is not merely a matter of personal preference; it is protected under Articles 19 and 21 and falls within the ambit of privacy, dignity, and individual autonomy.
In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the consent of family, community, or clan is not necessary when two adults decide to enter into wedlock. The Court observed that the right to choose one's life partner is constitutionally protected and that any interference would violate constitutional principles. Similarly, in Laxmi Devi & Anr. v. State & Ors., the Delhi High Court categorically held that society has no role in determining whom an adult should marry. Marriage, the Court emphasized, is a matter of personal choice between consenting adults — not a matter of family or social control. The prerogative to choose a life partner constitutes an intrinsic and inseparable facet of personal liberty under Article 21. The State's institutional mandate is to protect and uphold such freedoms, not to adjudicate familial discontent or accommodate social prejudice.
Further, in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court underscored that individual autonomy lies at the heart of constitutional liberty, encompassing the freedom to decide whom to love and whom to partner with.
The position is also reinforced at the international level. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which India is a signatory, provides under Article 16(1) that "men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."
It is indeed striking that the Constitution begins with the declaration "We the People," yet the same people are now sought to be restricted in choosing their life partners. The strength of the Constitution lies in its people‑centric vision one that guarantees dignity and autonomy without fear, coercion, or unwarranted State intrusion.
In India, obtaining parental consent before marriage may be a social practice, but it has never been recognised as a binding legal requirement. Recently, the Supreme Court observed that marriage signifies the coming together of two souls. When two individuals choose to unite, the role of society or family cannot extend to determining their partner.
A form of notification requirement already exists under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ("SMA"). Under Sections 5 and 6 of the SMA, intending spouses must file a notice of marriage with the Registrar, and that notice must be displayed at a conspicuous place in the Registrar's office. Notably, such a notice requirement does not exist under other personal laws. For instance, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, marriages may be registered without any prior public notice.
Courts have explicitly called out the intrusive potential of such notice provisions. In Safiya Sultana v. State of UP, the Allahabad High Court held that the requirement of a thirty‑day notice under the SMA creates an opportunity for interference by both State and non‑State actors, thereby violating the right to privacy. Likewise, in Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphatically affirmed that privacy and liberty are central to the choice of a life partner. The right to choose a partner, the Court recognised, is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Even the State of Uttarakhand, the first State to implement a Uniform Civil Code and one that projected the move as advancing gender justice and legal uniformity has introduced provisions requiring live‑in couples to register their relationship with district authorities. Couples are required to submit a statement of their live‑in relationship, which may then be subject to verification by authorities, including through community or religious heads. Such mechanisms risk institutionalising surveillance in intimate relationships under the guise of regulation.
The concern extends beyond Gujarat and Uttarakhand. In Uttar Pradesh, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 criminalises conversions effected through "misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by marriage," with harsh penalties and broad police powers to investigate such relationships. Although this law does not formally prohibit inter‑faith marriages, its vague language has enabled enforcement actions that intrude into the private relationships of consenting adults and condition such unions on administrative scrutiny. Madhya Pradesh presents another dimension of this trend. The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, similarly aimed at prohibiting conversions through "coercion, threat, undue influence, allurement, marriage, or other fraudulent means," requires individuals intending to convert to give advance notice to the District Magistrate and automatically deems marriages intended to effect conversion as void. Such provisions, by folding matrimonial choice into a regulatory regime more commonly associated with policing conversion, undermine personal autonomy in deeply personal decisions.
Together, these State measures increasingly blur the line between governance and guardianship. Constitutional morality demands that the State protect adult choice not pre‑emptively subject it to familial, bureaucratic, or majoritarian oversight. Perhaps the States have taken Bob Dylan's famous insight "You cannot be wise and be in love" rather literally, positioning themselves as the "wise" arbiters of personal relationships, dictating whom one may choose to love. Yet constitutional democracy does not permit the State to forecast, supervise, or validate love between consenting adults.
This proposed bill by Gujarat Government, if passed and enforced, would amount to a direct assault on an individual's fundamental right to choose a partner. They reflect an attempt to condition personal liberty upon parental acknowledgment, societal approval, or administrative validation, thereby subordinating constitutional guarantees to social control.
As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "No one can construct for you the bridge upon which precisely you must cross the stream of life, no one but you alone." The bridge of love, like the bridge of life, belongs to the individual. It cannot be built by the State, supervised by society, or approved by anyone else.
The author Manik Tanwar is a lawyer based in New Delhi and Shobha Prasad is a law student. Views are personal.