Court Upholds Passport Rights for Interfaith Married Couples: A Victory for Privacy, Autonomy, and the Right to Mobility
- ByAdmin --
- 21 Apr 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a progressive judgment that reinforces the constitutional protection of personal liberty and equality, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of an interfaith couple’s right to obtain a joint passport, stating that inter-caste or inter-religious marriage cannot be grounds for denial of government documents or public services.
The ruling comes in response to a case where the Regional Passport Office (RPO) had refused to process a passport application because the couple’s marriage—between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man—was registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and allegedly “awaited police verification.”
The Court’s verdict not only upholds the couple’s individual dignity, but also sets an important precedent for freedom of choice in personal relationships, especially amid growing instances of discrimination against interfaith unions.
The Case: A Passport Denied, A Marriage Questioned
The petitioners—a legally married interfaith couple living in Delhi—had applied for a joint passport, with the wife seeking a change of surname and spousal details.
However, the Passport Office put their application on hold, stating:
- That interfaith marriages require additional scrutiny
- That the couple must furnish a “no objection” verification from the police
- That the application would be processed only after “clarification of marital legitimacy”
The couple, both professionals with clean records, approached the High Court, calling the denial arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of their fundamental rights.
The Judgment: Marriage Is Personal, Not Political
The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Subramonium Prasad, ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the following critical observations:
1. Passport Authorities Cannot Act as Moral Guardians
- The Court held that the Passport Act does not authorize the office to question the nature of a valid marriage, especially when registered under Indian law.
- It emphasized that bureaucrats cannot use personal prejudice or unofficial policy to delay or deny services.
2. Special Marriage Act Is for All Citizens, Not a Barrier
- The judgment clarified that marriages registered under the Special Marriage Act are as valid as those under personal laws, and do not warrant extra procedural hurdles.
- Seeking “verification” for a registered union implies suspicion based on religion, which violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).
3. Right to Travel Is a Fundamental Right
- The Court referenced Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), affirming that the right to hold a passport and travel abroad is integral to Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
- Denial of this right based on marital status is unconstitutional and regressive.
4. State Must Facilitate, Not Inhibit, Marital Freedom
- By creating barriers for interfaith couples, the state is sending a message that religious conformity is a precondition for mobility, which is antithetical to secularism.
Why This Ruling Matters: Everyday Rights, Extraordinary Struggles
This judgment comes at a time when interfaith couples face increasing institutional hurdles, including:
- Refusals to register marriages
- Denial of domicile certificates, ration cards, or passports
- Police harassment and family interference
By upholding a seemingly procedural right like obtaining a passport, the Court has recognized the larger constitutional battle at play—the fight for freedom of choice in intimate relationships.
The Legal Landscape: Where Things Stand
India does not require religious conversion for interfaith marriage, thanks to the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, which allows two consenting adults of different faiths to marry legally.
However, in practice:
- SMA marriages often face delays, public notice requirements, and police inquiries
- Some states have introduced “love jihad” laws to monitor religious conversions for marriage
- Couples frequently approach courts for protection against coercion or denial of rights
This case adds to a growing body of jurisprudence that seeks to decriminalize choice and destigmatize interfaith love.
Expert Opinions and Social Reaction
Advocate Vrinda Grover welcomed the verdict, noting:
“Every right we take for granted—passport, phone number change, rental agreement—becomes a struggle when you marry outside the boundaries society prefers. This judgment recognizes that silent discrimination.”
Interfaith advocacy groups have called for:
- Sensitization of bureaucrats
- Removal of “religious profiling” in service delivery
- Legal reforms to protect marital privacy
What Happens Next
The Court has ordered:
- The Regional Passport Office to issue the passport within 10 days
- The Ministry of External Affairs to retrain passport officers on handling marriage cases without prejudice
- A copy of the judgment to be sent to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for policy review
Love Needs No Clearance Certificate
In defending a couple’s right to hold a passport, the Court has reaffirmed a larger truth—that the state has no business interfering in the private choices of consenting adults.
Because rights don’t change with the surname on a marriage certificate, and identity documents should not become instruments of ideology.
At its heart, this is not just a passport judgment. It’s a reminder that dignity, love, and liberty travel together—without borders, and certainly without bias.
RELATED Blog
0 comments