Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking to challenge the order of the Allahabad High Court


Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking to challenge the order of the Allahabad High Court

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking to challenge the order of the Allahabad High Court, which held that “conversion just for the purpose of marriage is unacceptable”
The top court stated that the High Court’s divisional bench subsequently disapproved and set aside the order under appeal.

The Bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian stated that they saw no reason to intervene because the petitioner accepted that the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad had subsequently set aside the order of 23 September.

At the outset, the bench asked the petitioner’s lawyer, Aldanish Rein, why he could not approach the High Court on the matter since his petition under Article 32 of the Constitution does not constitute an appropriate remedy for setting aside the High Court’s order.

Rein argued that the Supreme Court could say that the High Court’s declaration was not correct.
The bench told Rein that there was no need to work on something like this and the High Court could be approached for any substantial relief.

If you are not given relief by the High Court, then you can come here, “If the High Court doesn’t give you relief, then you can come here,” Rein argued that the High Court order caused the government of Uttar Pradesh to pass an order, and because of this, hundreds of interfaith couples are harassed every day.

“You are spoiling your own case by pressing on a point which is not tenable. You are unnecessarily pressing this”You are spoiling your own case. You press this unnecessarily.
“Yes, the division bench of the High Court has said that this declaration is not correct”Yes, the High Court’s division bench has said that this statement is not correct.
The bench said, “Once the division bench has held this declaration to be bad, then why do you want the Supreme Court to declare the same”

“Being concerned for the freedom to practice any religion and the freedom to choose a life partner and further being concerned with the wrong precedent set by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the present petitioner is approaching this Court in the capacity of an Officer of this Court through the instant Public Interest Litigation”Being concerned with the freedom to practice any religion and the freedom to choose a life partner and also being concerned with the wrong precedent set by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in the present petitioner, through the present Public Interest Litigation, is approaching this Court in the capacity of an Officer of this Court.

The lawyer stated that the order of the High Court not only left the poor couple at the mercy of the members of the offending family, the police, the vigilantes, and the religious associations of the hate monger but also set a false precedent that inter-religious marriages can not be solemnized by either partner in the case of conversion of religion.

The Special Marriage Act, 1954, should undoubtedly be adopted by interfaith couples to get married, but the cumbersome process and the unreasonable provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 make it very difficult for a runaway couple to comply with the said provisions resulting in religious marriages after conversion to the faith of either partner, the plea said.

In his plea, Rein argued that the petitioner has seen in his family inter-religious Special Marriage Act Marriages and is therefore aware of the difficulties that an inter-religious couple has to face in order to get married.
The plea said That practically the Special Marriage Act is only meant for couples where both the families are in agreement of such marriages or at least are not out there to harm the couple,”

It stated that a person’s choice of religion is a personal choice of a person. If the Court does not allow a person to freely choose his religion, it amounts to a violation of his or her fundamental right as guaranteed under the Constitution of India”
The petition argued that the findings presented by the High Court were wrong in terms of the freedom of religion and the freedom to choose a life partner, as provided by the values of the Indian Constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: