The Special Marriage Act, 1954

Goes Awry
B. Sivaram ayya*

T H E S PE C IA L M arriage A ct, 1954 is an in jp ortan t lan dm ark in the

secu larization o f the law s in India. W hile in trod u cin g the B ill in the L o k
Sabha the H o n ’ble M r. C .C . B isw as stated : “ It is an attem p t to lay dow n
a u niform territorial law o f m arriage for th e w h o le o f India.

T h e A ct con stitu tes th e first and the on ly step taken tow ards the
g o a l o f a u niform civil co d e en visaged under article 4 4 o f the Indian C ons­
titu tio n . A la s, in th e cou rse o f tw o decades the g o vern m en t has n ot m uster­
ed sufficient cou rage and p o litica l will to take further step s tow ards that
go a l. The reasons are n o t far to seek . T h e first is surrender o f the p o li­
tical process to forces o f con servatism and reaction under th e pretext o f
“ p ragm atic ap proach ” ^ or w o rse still, osten sib le con cern for the feelings
o f m inorities. T he secon d is th e fear that issues lik e so cia l ju stice to w o ­
m en and con seq u en t ch an ges in personal law s w ill resu lt in loss o f votes
than a gain in votes. N o w ond er that in th e last tw o d ecad es even m odest
m easures suggested by • th e Law C om m ission s in their reports on the C o n ­
verts’ M arriage D isso lu tio n A ct, 1866 and the C hristian m atrim on ial causes
have been gathering d u st on th e sh e lv e s .

Surprisingly, in th e m arch tow ards th e goal o f a u niform civil cod e

the Indian judiciary has fared n o b etter. A ccu sto m ed to fo llo w the path o f
E nglish jud icial in stitu tion s and thou ght faith fully fo r w ell over a century,
it has failed to ev o lv e creative rules o f in terp retation in tune w ith the
aspirations con tain ed in the d irective principles o f th e C on stitu tion . A n
excep tion to this trend has b een p rovid ed by th e ju d g m en t o f D haw an ,
J., in Balwant R a j v. Union o f India,^ w here h e rightly and boldly asserted;

* M-L- (Andhra), L.L.M . (Yale), D.C.L- (M cG ill), Reader, Faculty of Law, University
o f Delhi.
1. V Parliwnenta’-y Debates, House o f the People, 7797 Pt. II (1954).
2. K. Subba Rao, Foreword in Devadason, Christian l.aw in India, (1974). He says;
“Its (State’s) neglect o f this constitutional duty is hailed as a democratic approach. At
best it is only a pragmatic approach, at the worst it has political overtones ”
3. A.I-R. 1968 All. 14.
 THE SPECIAL M A R RIAG E ACT, 1954 GOES A W R Y i< /

T h e rights enshrined in th e directive p rin cip les are n o t ju sticia b le

b u t these principles h ave b een m ade “ fu n d am en ta l in the governan ce
o f the cou n try” under A rticle 37 w h ich p rovid es th a t it shall b e the
duty o f the state to apply th em in m aking law s. T h e p hrase “ m aking
o f law s” is w ide en ou gh to in clu d e their in terp retation a n d therefore
the courts m ust interpret th e law s in the ‘ligh t o f th e D irective
P rinciples’.*

T he d ecision s o f th e cou rts during th e past tw o d eca d es are conspicu*

ous for their failure to grasp the ab ove p rin cip le and pen um bras o f arti­
cles 14 and 4 4 o f th e C o n stitu tio n w hen in terp reting th e statutes.®

The forces o f con servatism su cceed ed rem arkably in stalling the

ad vance tow ards a u n iform c iv il cod e. C riticism w as n o t w an tin g on the
lo n e specim en o f a p rojected u n iform civil co d e. C o m m u n a l organiza­
tio n s in H yderabad an d elsew h ere d em and ed that th e A ct sh ould n ot be
m ad e ap plicab le to sp ecific com m u n ities. But cu rio u sly th e p rocess o f
erosion o f th e id eals b eh ind the A ct started n ot b eca u se o f the efforts o f
th e op p on en ts o f th e A c t b u t b ecau se o f th e le g isla tiv e am b u sh initiated by
th e g o vern m en t itself.

T he Special M arriage (A m en d m en t) A ct, 1963* is a m isgu ided m ea­

sure calcu lated to subvert th e Special M arriage A c t, 1954. T he A m end in g
A ct introduced the fo llo w in g p roviso to the requ irem en t in section 4 clause
(d) that the parties to th e m arriage sh ould n o t b e w ith in th e prohibited
degrees ;

P rovided that w here a cu sto m governing at least o n e o f th e parties

p erm its o f a m arriage b etw een th em , su ch m arriage m a y b e so le­
m nized , n otw ith stan d in g that they are w ithin th e p roh ib ited degrees
o f relationship.

The exp lan ation to th e sectio n p rovid es that cu sto m in relation to a

person m eans any rule w hich th e state G overn m en t m ay, by n otification
in the O fficial G a z e tte sp ecify as a p p licab le to m em b ers o f a tribe, co m m u ­
nity, group or fam ily.

4. Id. at 17. Referred to with approval by Beg, J., in Kesavanandq Bharati v. S ta te o f

Kerala and Another, (1973) Supp. S.C-R. 865.
5. For example, see the decisions in Devassy A lly v. Augustine, A .I.R . 1956 T.C. 1 and
Rangu Bai y. Laxman A .I.R . 1966 Bom- 169, where the courts preferred a cons:rus*
tion which will lead towards a diversity in the personal laws than a uniformity.
6. Act. 32 of IP'S,
312 THE HINDU MAR RIAG E & SPECIAL M ARRI a GE ACTS

II

T h e retrograde feature o f the am en dm en t from th e perspective o f a

u niform civil cod e m ay b e n oted . Prior to the a m en d m en t, the Special
M arriage A ct su bordin ated th e personal law s to the p rovision s o f the
A ct and its policies on m atters relating to m arriage, d ivorce and succession.
T h e a m en dm en t on the other hand introduced the p ern icious principle o f
su bordin ating th e A ct to th e p ersonal law s in respect o f p rohibited degrees.

O n m erits the am en d m en t o f 1963 is even less d efensible. R easons

d iscern ib le the statem ent o f O bjects and R eason s appended to the B ill and
the statem ents o f the m inister w ho m oved th e B ill in th e H o u se are ;

(0 It is- w ell know n that in S outh India m arriage b etw een clo se
relations is p erm itted under th e personal law . 1 h e m arriages
tak e p lace under the H in d u M arriage A ct. B u t su p p osin g the
parties thereto w an t to m arry under the p ro v isio n s o f th e
Special M arriage A c t, su ch a m arriage w ill n o t be perm itted
b ecau se they cou ld fall w ithin th e p roh ibited d egree o f relation ­
ship. T o avoid su ch difficulties, it is p ro p o sed to bring custom
a lso under section 4 o f the S pecial M arriage Act."

(ii) It is on e o f the revered leaders o f this country R ajagopalachari,

w ho raised this q u estion an d w an ted th e G o v ern m en t to co n si­
der it and in corp orate it in this Bill.*

T he m arriages w ithin th e p roh ib ited degrees am ong the H indus which

the legislature had in m ind are generally m arriages w ith sister's daughter,
m aternal u n cle’s daughter and father's sister's daughter. From the stand­
p o in t o f p olicy, th e am en dm en t p erm its the parties to b low h ot and cold,
to a ccep t the personal law that su its them and to reject, that p ortion o f per­
son al law that d oes n ot su it them . A ccord ing to eu gen ics, the m arriages
n oted ab ove do not deserve to be encouraged. U . M . Trivedi rightly
p o in ted out during th e d ebates : “ A n d , here we are saying that w e w ant to
p erp etu ate a scientilically w rong p rocess and a m orally w rong approach.®”

L .M . Singhvi, the then m em ber from Jodhpur, w as eq u ally critical :

7. Speech of Deputy M inister, Bibhudhendra Mlshra X X N o. 12, Lok Sabha Debates,

col. 3228.
8. W. at col. 3268.
9. X X N o. 12, Lok Sabha Debates, col. 3234.
 THE SPECIAL M A R R tA G E ACT, lP54 GOES RY 3 ll

T his Bill is an exam p le o f the pointless; ill-considered p roliferation

o f legislative en actm en ts in our country and o f legislative am en d ­
m ents. T he legislative brains trust w hich appears to ad v ise th e Law
M inistry in b rin gin g forth this p roliferic p rogeny b efo re us seem s to
be h abituated to a sort o f aim less w andering. It stu m b les every
on ce in a w hile on w hat it considers as a bright new idea, and this
precocious brains trust p resen ts to us the fruit and th e result o f what
1 m ay be p erm itted to call regretfully a child o f leg isla tiv e adventu­
rism . It is a p ity and w e have every right to resen t th e fa ct that
leg islation s such as this are con ceived in h a ste an d are n ot aided by
the necessary b ack grou n d o f research and in vestigation into
social p rocesses and social in stitu tio n s.... L eg isla tio n after all m ust
subserve a social policy.^®

The secon d ju stification viz., that the late R ajagopalachari had suggested
the am endm ent, is based on an equally flim sy ground. B eyon d d oub t
the late R ajaji had a razor-edge intellect and had expressed his view s on a
variety o f topics lik e th e B .C .G . vaccin ation, birth co n tro l, eco n o m ic p o li­
cies, state cap italism , com m u n ists, etc., w hich w ere often controversial.
R ajaji’s view n otw ith stan d in g th e am en dm en t is n o t a step in the right
direction.

A s D errett p oin ted o u t the am en d m en t d e-cod ified th e general law ;

It is surprising to n o te that by the S pecial M arriage (A m en d m en t)

A ct, A ct N o . 32 o f 1963, Parliam ent d e-cod ified th e general law ,
to th e’ extent that m arriages m ay b e valid if p erform ed under this
statute althou gh they are w ithin the p roh ibited degrees, p rovided
that a cu stom govern in g at least o n e o f the parties p erm its o f a
marriage b etw een th em ; and ‘cu sto m ’ is sp e c ia lly defined for the
p urpose o f the A c t as a ‘rule w hich the S tate G o v ern m en t m ay,
by n otification in the O fficial G azette, sp ecify in this b eh a lf as
applicable to m em bers o f that tribe, com m u n ity group or fam ily.'
...T h e oddity o f this statu te and its provisions n eed s n o under lining,
and im agin ation ca n n o t co n ceiv e how it ca m e to b e p a ssed excep t
to satisfy so m e in fluential in dividu als. O ne m ay con jectu re som e
cau se as bizarre as the resu lts, e.g . a fam ily in w hich o n e m em ber
changed his or h er religion , and m em bers in clu d ing this m em ber
w ished to m arry w h ilst w ithin the custom ary degrees fo r m arriage

10. Id. at Gol. 3250,

314 THE HINDU M ARRIAGE & SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACTS

in th e caste, but by reason o f the change o f relig io n th ey were

u nab le to m arry at H in d u la w .“

III

T h e d ecod ification o f th e S pecial M arriage A c t or the p rocess o f

subversion o f the A ct to th e p erson al law s, in itiated b y th e A m en d in g A ct
o f 1963 is sou ght to be en larged under th e reco m m en d a tio n s o f the Law
C o m m issio n on section s 19 to 21.

B efore dealing w ith th ese recom m en d ation s w e w ish to underline a

p o in t m ad e by th e D ep u ty M in ister for Law during the D eb a tes on the
d esirability o f the am en d m en t o f 1963.

T here is a d ifference b etw een a m arriage under the H in d u law and

a m arriage under the S p ecial M arriage A ct. T he re la tio n sh ip w ith
the jo in t fam ily is co m p letely severed if o n e m arries under the
Special M arriage A ct. T here is also a difference so far as succession
is concerned.

So it m ust b e left to the p erson concerned to ch o o se w hether he

w ould marry under the H indu law or th e Special M arriage Act.^'^

T he Law C om m ission n ow com es to an exactly o p p o site co n clu sio n .

D ea lin g w ith section 21 o f the S pecial M arriage Act^® it observed ;

In our op in ion , it is d esirab le to exclu de from the sc o p e o f this

se ctio n cases w here b oth th e parties are H indus. In su ch cases,
the law o f su ccession oth erw ise ap plicab le should co n tin u e to apply.
W e see no reason w hy th e fact that the p a rties ch o o se to marry
under th e Special M arriage A ct sh ould m ake a d ifferen ce in such
cases i.e. where both are H in d us. W e recom m end th a t such cases
sh ould be excluded from sectio n 2 1 .’^^

11. J.D.M . Derrett, Religion, Law and the State in India 327-28, f.n- 2 (1968).
12. Supra note 9 at col. 3268­
13. S. 21 reads;; “ NotwithstaadiDig aay restrictioQS contained in the Indian Succession
A ct (X XX IX o f 1925), with respect to its application to members o f certain communities,
succession to the propeity o f any person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act, and
to the property of the issue o f such marriage shall be regulated by the provisions o f the said
A ct, and for the purposes of this section that Act shall have effect as if chapter HI of part V
(Special Rules for Parsi Intestates) had been omitted therefrom.”
1 ♦. The Law Commission o f India, Fifty ninth Report 98 (1974). Hereinafter cited as the
Fifty-ninth Report.
 T R t S p e c i a l m a r r i a g e a c t , 1954 g o e s a w r y 315

T he Fifty-ninth R e p o r t has also recommended^® that w here b oth parties

are H indus, se ctio n w h ich p rovid es for th e severance fro m th e jo in t-
fam ily sh ould b e o ver-rid d en . In com in g to this c o n clu sio n they relied
perhaps on th e over-em p h a sized view o f th e orth o d o x sectio n s o f the c o m ­
m unity as revealed in G o u r ’s statem en t (w h o sp o n so red th e am en dm en t
o f 1923 to th e S p ecial M arriage A ct, 1872) and th e view o f the jo in t
co m m ittee on the S p ecial M arriage B ill w hich led to th e A c t o f 1954. T he
o rth od ox section s w a n ted su ch a p rovision as a d eterrent against sp ecial
m arriages. T he Join t cornm ittee justified th e p ro v isio n on the grou n ds :
( 0 that otherw ise th e daugh ters w ou ld b e deprived o f th e rights o f inheri­
tan ce, and ( 11) that “ it w ou ld b e extrem ely in co n v en ien t to have different
law s o f su ccession ap p licab le to different types o f p ro p erty .”

T he F ifty-n in th R eport states ;

W e have carefu lly considered th e m atter, and w e think that no

“ deterrent” is required against special marriages,. A p rovision o f
the nature co n ta in ed 'in section 219 is not required w here both the
parties are H in d u s, B u d h ists, Sikhs or Jains.

S o far as the d esire to p rotect the p ositio n o f daughters is con cer­

ned, the passin g o f the H in d u S uccession A ct rem oves th e difficulty,
becau se they are given the right to su cceed under that A ct, and
w here the fem a le is alive, property d o es n ot p ass by survivorship,
but it p asses by su ccession . S econ d ly, so far as th e d esire to m ain­
tain on e system o f su ccession for all properties is concerned, w e
are n ot d isturbin g that principle, as we p rop ose to exclu de, from
section 21, Special M arriage A ct, m arriages w here b o th parties are
Hindus.^’

C onsequently th e Law C om m ission recom m en d ed the insertion o f the

fo llo w in g section 2 1 A in th e S pecial M arriage A c t ;

21 A . W here a m arriage is solem n ized under this A ct o f any per­

son w ho p rofesses the H in d u, B uddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion
section s 19 and 21 shall n ot apply and so m uch o f sectio n 20 as
creates a d isability shall also not apply.

15. Id. at 95.

16. S. 19 : "Tlie Marriage solemnized under this Act of jvny member o f an undivided
family who professes the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion shall b e deemed to effect
his severance from the joint family.”
17. Supra note 14 at 94 (footnotes omitted).
316 t H E HIND U M A R R IA G E & SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT^i

T h e recom m en d ation o f th e L aw C om m ission w ill give rise to the

fo llo w in g q uestions : W hy is the sc o p e o f the p rop osed sectio n restricted to
H in d us only ? C an n ot the ration ale o f the reco m m en d a tio n be extended,
thou gh n ot suggested by the com m ission , when tw o Parsis or M u s­
lim s m arry under the A ct ? Is su ch infiltration o f p erson al law s desirable ?
W h at w ill be the future rep ercu ssion s 7

A t th e ou tset a p assin g thou ght will occur to th e m ind : Is this special

provision in respect o f H in d u s a lo n e, con stitu tion ally valid ? T h e co m m is­
sion consists o f em inent ju rists on co n stitu tion a l law . T herefore, w e can
assu m e that in th e view o f the com m ission there is a n exu s b etw een the
ob ject o f the A ct and th e classification draw n I5y se ctio n 21A — even if it be
baffling. -

Is the reasoning o f th e co m m issio n ap plicab le to C hristians w h o are

governed by the H in d u law ? F or exam p le, in A n th o n y S w a m i v. M .R .
Chiim a S w a m i , th e S up rem e C ourt held" that V ann iya T a m il C hristians o f
C hittor Taluk o f C ochin w ere governed by the M itakshara law and th e d o ­
ctrine o f p ious ob ligation . T h e n ative C hristians in P ondicherry, w ho have
n o t renou n ced their p erson al law in favour o f th e F rench C ivil C ode
{reuoncaius) and to w h om the Indian S uccessio n A c t d o es n o t apply, are
governed by H indu cu stom ary law.*® T h e Indian S u ccessio n A ct has not'
been extended to P ondicherry and th e Clirjstian w om en sulfer the sam e disa­
b ilities as w om en under the custom ary H indu law in regard to su ccession.
T h e Indian C hristians in P ond icherry w ho are n o t renoncants, are governed
by the French Civil C ode or the S p ecial M arriage A c t a t their ch oice with
respect to marriage.^® T h e C hristians in N aga la n d and other parts o f the
N orth -E astern region o f In d ia and the C hristians in th e states o f Punjab,
H aryana and H im ach al Pradesh^* are governed by th e cu stom ary la w s which
m ay or m ay n o t in clu d e the features o f M itakshara law .

A p lausible argum ent is th at in these cases the su ccession al rights o f

d aughters are n ot su b stan tial and, therefore, th e better rights that accrue to

18. A . I R . 1970 S.C 2 2 1 ,

19- Subhash C. Jain, The French Legdl System in Poitdlc/ier'ry ; An tntroduction, l l
J.l.L .I. 507, 601 (1970); David Annoussamy, Pondicherry : Babel o f Personal Laws, 14 J t.L I
420, 423 (1972). -
20. David Annoussamy, ibid.
21. Premchand v. Lilawati, A.I.R- 1956 H.P. V I.'
 THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954 GOES A W R Y 317

them by the ap plication o f th e Indian Succession A ct sh ould be preserved.

B ut this argum ents loses its force b ecau se under section 6 o f the H indu
Succession' A ct, 1956 th e rights o f fem ale heirs are inferior w hen com pared
to coparceners as th e H in d u Succession A ct preserves th e right by birth.

T he com m ission does n ot give any specific reason as to why they

prefer the ap p licab ility o f H in d u law to th a t o f th e Indian Succession A c t,
1925 except that they im p lied ly accep t the sta tem en t o f G our that
th e.p rovision relating to separation from th e jo in t fa m ily is a deterrent to
special m arriages. T he recom m en dation has the effect o f enlarging th e
applicability o f H in d u law and restricting the sco p e o f th e S pecial M arriage
A ct. T he solicitu d e for th e M itakshara joint fam ily in present tim es is
understandable. B y far th e m ost serious objection to th e recom m endation
is that white it gives ho sp ecial advantages it w ill generate a dem and from
other com m u n ities for sim ilar ap plication o f p ersonal laws."^ T he recom ­
m endation m ay w ell serve as a prelude for the ab rogation o f the p rovisions
relating to su ccession in the S pecial M arriage A ct.

D o es it m atter ? In m y opinion it d oes, b eca u se it cuts the escape

route from the op pressive personal law s. Specially the M uslim law has b e ­
co m e the “ H oly C o w ” for the governm ent and^.reforms in M ulim law at
th e initiative o f th e governm ent stand ruled out. A t p resen t a M uslim can
get over the anachronism s o f his personal law by resorting to the registra­
tion o f his m arriage under the provisions o f the Special M arriage A ct.
In such cases, the M u slim law ceases to apply, and the p rovisions contained
in part V, chapters I and 2 o f the Indian S uccession A ct, 1925 w ould b e ­
co m e applicable. T o illustrate, under the M uslim Jaw as it stands in India
today, the orphaned grandchildren o f a M u slim are n o t entitled to inherit
the property o f their grandparents in the presence o f th e sons and daugh­
ters o f the grandparent, [n other w ords they are n ot en titled to the right
o f representation. I f th e grandparent wants to m ak e a p rovision in favour
a f his orphaned grandchildren the only way op en to him is to m ake a b e­
quest. But here the M u slim law lim its the testam entary cap acity o f an indi­
vidual to one-third o f the estate. I f h e wants Jto lea v e to his orphaned
grandchildren m ore than* one-third o f his estate after his d eath, his intention
cannot b e given effect to u nder the M u slim law. H e can ach ieve this object

22- It may be pointed that views were expressed that a marriage between a Christian
and a non-Christian should be permitted under the Indian Christian M a rria g e Act. See, the
Law Commission, Fifteenth Report 3 and Twenty-second Report 4. Muslim organizations-
passed resolutions to the effect that the Special Marriage Act should not be applied
to Muslimg.
 318 the HINDU M ARRIAG E & SPECIAL MAR RIAG E ATS

b y registering his m arriage u n le r the S pecial M arriage A ct, as under this

A ct, h e has u n lim ited testam entary pow er. T h e seco n d lin e o f cases relate
to th e share o f a w ife under the M uslim law o f inheritance. T h e share o f a
w idow in her h u sb an d ’s estate under M u slim law is o n e-eig h th if she has
issue, and on e-fou rth if sh e is childless. T hus, i f a M u slim dies leaving
a w id ow and a fath er’s brother (a m ale agn ate) as heirs, th e w id ow takes
on e-fou rth and the fa th er’sjb ro th er takes the resid ue. F y ze e says :

T o m y ow n k n o w led g e a num ber o f old er co u p les are registering

their m arriages in order to b e governed by th e provisions o f the
Indian S uccession A ct w hereby they can d isp o se o f their property
in accord ance w ith their ow n w ishes, so that it d o es n ot g o after
them to persons for w h om they have no regard or affection , by the
letter 6 f the Shariat or the dharm a th e (the religion s law s o f the
M u slim s and H in d u s respectively).^®

In con clusion it is su bm itted, w ith respect, that th e recom m en d ation

o f the Law C om m ission in its Fifty-ninth R e p o rt to exclu de from the
operation o f section 21 o f the S pecial M arriage A ct, m arriages w here
b oth parties are H in d u s is p r i m a f a d e d iscrim inatory, and if th e recom m en ­
d ation is m ad e ap p licab le to all com m un ities it w ill an nih ijate the p ro g ­
ressive spirit b eh ind th a t legislation .

23. V yzee,M aJ)r Developments in Muhammadan Law in India, 2, Seminer

paper in the Institute o f Islamic Studies, McQLIl Uaiver^ity. N<jv, 1958,