Secular In Paper, Communal In Practice -The Legal Irony Of Sarika Sen Judgement

About The Authors

This article is written by 3rd year BA LLB students of Govt law college Thiruvananthapuram

INTRODUCTION

Judiciary is the guardian of fundamental rights but what, when the judiciary itself shuts itsdoor, revealing the grim reality of the apparent hypocrisy of what is secular in paper butcommunal in practice. A recent example is the decision of the High Court in Sarika Sen v.State of Madhya Pradesh1, which concocted an imbalance while addressing the overlapbetween Special Marriage Act, 1954 and Muslim Laws of Marriage. This article is ananalysis of the legal paradox of this judgment in the broader realm of the pluralistic society ofIndia.

FACTS

The instant case revolves around the petitioner, Sarika Sen, a Hindu female (Petitioner 1) andher lover, a Muslim male (Petitioner 2) who decided to solemnize their marriage as per theSpecial Marriage Act, 1954. Upon objections raised by the petitioner’s father, they were notin a position to appear before the marriage officer for registration of the intended marriage.As a result, they approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh through a writ petitionseeking mandamus directing the Respondent authority to:a) provide security to the petitioners from the family members of petitioner no.1.b) provide follow-up guard to the petitioners for appearing before the MarriageRegistration Officer i.e. Additional Collector Anuppur.c) not register any false cases against petitioner No.2 in respect of kidnapping or otherrelated offences.The petitioner’s father opposed the petition on the account that the petitioner left the houseby taking jewellery and cash of all the family members. He further raised concerns of

ISSUES