The policy of applying personal laws in marriages was essentially introduced

by Warren Hastings, the first Governor-General of British India, in 1772, and

was then followed by British colonials throughout their rule in India. Even
after the country's independence, the Indian government decided to maintain
the same legal stance on marriages, making it clear that they did not want to
interfere with people's religious beliefs. Marriage laws, which M.P. Jain
describes as "communal pieces of legislation," can be divided into the
following categories based on religion.

Marriage laws in Hinduism

The Graha Sutra considers Vivaha, or marriage, to be the most important of the
sixteen samskaras (socio-religious rites within the Hindu belief system). It is
regarded as a sacrament, a union of two personalities for the purpose of
protecting and maintaining society through self-control, reciprocal cooperation,
and self-sacrifice. Marriage is also considered a religious duty of a Hindu,
according to the Vedas.
Section 5 of the Act establishes the following conditions:
There should be no existing spouse (of either party) alive at the time of the
formalisation of the marriage.
Due to insanity, neither party is unable to consent to their marriage.
Despite their ability to consent to marriage, neither party suffers from any mental
illness to the point where it would be difficult for them to bear children.

Marriage laws in Islam

In India, there is no codified law governing Muslim marriages: The main difference
between Hindu and Islamic perspectives on marriage is that the former regards it
as a sacrament, whereas the latter regards it as a civil contract (nikahnama)
between a Muslim man and woman.
The following are the basic requirements for a valid Muslim marriage: Existence of
a person's ability to marry.
As it is a contractual relationship, the presence of a proposal (ijab) and
subsequent acceptance (qubool) is required.
Both parties to the agreement must freely consent to the agreement.
A monetary reward (Mehr) for the contract's completion.
There should be no legal stumbling blocks in the way of the marriage's
completion.
Witnesses must be present in order to inspect the contractual agreement.
Depending on the accepted belief system, the number of witnesses varies.

Marriage Law in the Sikh Religion

While Sikhs are legally considered "Hindus," there has always been a demand
from within the community for separate marriage legislation that is only for Sikhs.
These demands stemmed from the harassment that many Sikh couples faced
abroad as a result of their marriage certificate being issued under the 'Hindu'
Marriage Act of 1955.
The appellant in Birendra Kaur v. Union of India filed a public interest lawsuit in
the Punjab and Haryana High Court, requesting that the four Hindu codes,
including the Hindu Marriage Act, be renamed from "Hindu" to something more
secular because it included members from three other communities.
Following his dismissal in the High Court, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme
Court in 2012, requesting a justification for Hindu marriage laws' applicability to
Sikhs. In response, the Supreme Court asked the Indian government if the Acts
could be referred to as such.

Marriage laws in Parsi

Parsis are members of a religious minority group that adheres to Zoroastrianism's
tenets. The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936 governs their marriages.
The registration of Parsi marriages takes place in the Registrar's office that falls
under their territorial jurisdiction.
The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (hereafter the Act) lays out the
requirements for a legally valid Parsi matrimony in Section 3. The following is a list
of them:
The marriage will not be valid under the Act if there is a certain level of
"consanguinity" or blood relation between the prospective couple or parties.
If the parties' shared relationship is one of those listed in Schedule I of the Act, the
marriage will be declared invalid.
The marriage must be solemnised in the presence of a Parsi priest.
What is the Special Marriage Act? The Special Marriage Act of 1954 permits
people of different religious backgrounds to unite in marriage. Where either the
husband or wife, or both, are not Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, or Sikhs, the Special
Marriage Act of 1954 lays out the procedure for both solemnization and
registration of marriage.
Couples must serve a notice with all relevant documents to the Marriage Officer
30 days before the intended wedding date, according to this Act. While this
process is now available online at https://www.onlinemarriageregistration.com/,
the couple will still need to visit a marriage officer to be married.
Procedure for registering Both parties must be present after submitting
documents for the issuance of a public notice inviting objections under the Special
Marriage Act.
One copy of the notice is posted on the school's bulletin board.

Conversion by coercion
Adoption of a different religion or irreligion under duress is known as forced
conversion.
[1] While outwardly behaving as a convert, someone who has been forced to
convert to a different religion or irreligion may continue to adhere to their original
beliefs and practises. Historical examples of the latter include crypto-Jews, crypto-
Christians, crypto-Muslims, and crypto-Pagans.
For example, "force" can also refer to the "threat of divine wrath." Farcically, a
missionary informing a person that only Christians are allowed into heaven – a
core part of the faith – could be interpreted as "force." The Orissa High Court
upheld this interpretation of "force" in Yulitha Hyde v. State of Orissa. The "threat
of divine displeasure numbs the mental faculty; more so of an undeveloped mind,
and the actions of such a person thereafter are not free," according to the theory.

This isn't a one-time occurrence of religious discrimination. In fact, it is

enshrined in law. Conversion is illegal in all but name in five Indian states. The
process of conversion in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, and
Himachal Pradesh is regulated to such a Kafkaesque degree that it is impossible
to carry out – which was precisely the motive of the law's framers.