Plea In Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC Order Which Denied Protection To Couple Holding That Conversion For The Purpose Of Marriage Unacceptable

first_imgTop StoriesPlea In Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC Order Which Denied Protection To Couple Holding That Conversion For The Purpose Of Marriage Unacceptable LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK5 Nov 2020 2:26 AMShare This – xA writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging that a “wrong precedent” has been set by the Allahabad High Court by declining police protection to an inter-faith married couple holding that religious conversion for the purpose of marriage unacceptable. The petition has been filed by Advocate Aldanish Rein. He is aggrieved by the fact that with the passing of the impugned…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging that a “wrong precedent” has been set by the Allahabad High Court by declining police protection to an inter-faith married couple holding that religious conversion for the purpose of marriage unacceptable. The petition has been filed by Advocate Aldanish Rein. He is aggrieved by the fact that with the passing of the impugned order, the Allahabad High Court has not only left the couple at the mercy of their offending families hate monger religious associations but has also laid a wrong precedent that inter-religious marriages cannot be solemnized at the instance of conversion of religion by either of the partner. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s verdict in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, in which it was observed that if the person feigns to have adopted another religion just for some worldly gain or benefit, it would be religious bigotry, the Allahabad High Court had last month denied police to a married couple. ‘Religious Conversion Just For The Purpose Of Marriage Is Unacceptable’: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Of Married Couple Stating that the High Court has proceeded on an “incorrect interpretation” of this judgment, the Petitioner has submitted, “The Constitution of India provides for right to freedom of religion and the same includes that a person has the right to choose and profess any religion or no religion at all. It also includes the right to convert into any religion as many times as one wants to with no tabs. 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.” He has submitted that the Judgment does not mean that conversion for the sake of marriage is a worldly gain or benefit; rather it only means that such conversions shall not be for the purposes of exploitation and only exploitation is connoted as “worldly gain or benefit”. “When two adults of different religion, fall in love with each other and decides to get married to each other against the wishes of their parents / society / religious leaders etc. it cannot be termed as an exploitation if they wish to convert to the religion of their partner and get married. The law and the courts could only interfere if there is a direct exploitation being caused to any third person…,” the plea states. Significantly, both the Petitioner and his sister (presently the Joint Treasurer of SCBA) are Muslims by religion and have married their respective Hindu Spouse under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. He has submitted that he has witnessed the “cumbersome process” and “unreasonable provisions” of the Special Marriage Act, which makes it very difficult for a runaway couple to abide by the said provisions— resulting in religious marriages after conversion to the faith of either of the partner. He has stated 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. This is because the Act mandates a notice period and invites objections to such notice, making it difficult for runaway couples. Citing the process given under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the Act, the Petitioner submitted, “So the runaway couple cannot just apply with any marriage officer, either of them have to be a resident of the same jurisdiction for atleast 30 days prior to applying and in order to prove the same, they would have to show some proof, such as a rent agreement etc. which is difficult for a runaway couple. It is not just open to the family members to object but to any member of the society, and the objector has been given 30 days to object and the G couple has to wait for these thirty days. The Couple also has to arrange for three witnesses in the hostile world that they are already in.” The Petitioner has relied on the observations made Justice DY Chandrachud in Hadiya’s case, reiterated thus: “The law prescribes conditions for a valid marriage. It provides remedies when relationships run aground. Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. They form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution.” He has therefore urged the Court to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court, and provide immediate police protection to the concerned couple. It is further sought that all the matters pending in various High Courts challenging provisions of the Special Marriage Act 1954 should be transferred to the Supreme Court and adjudicated so as to bring uniformity in the Act for the entire Country. In the alternate it is prayed that a committee be formed to be presided over by a retired Supreme Court Judge to ascertain and recommend appropriate amendments in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for its effective implementation.Next Storylast_img read more

Read More »

MBB : Syracuse motivated to reach Elite Eight with 2010 Butler loss still fresh in mind

first_img Comments BOSTON – The memories of the gut-wrenching defeat won’t fade. They can’t. They’re  permanently etched somewhere in the recesses of the head of each Syracuse player who sat in a tear-drenched locker room in Salt Lake City, Utah, two years ago.Images like that of Arinze Onuaku hiding himself in his locker behind a white towel don’t disappear. The black and blue logos emblazoned on the towel could not cover the black and blue bruises of the agonizing loss to Butler in the Sweet 16.‘I feel like it’s one of those experiences that you go through, and it’s always in the back of your mind,’ Syracuse junior forward James Southerland said. ‘You know how it is losing, so it’s like more will power and having the will power to win.’It’s been eight long years since the Orange has tasted the sweetness of a regional final, eight long years without playing for the chance to go to a Final Four. But a win on Thursday against Wisconsin pushes Syracuse into the Elite Eight for the first time since the 2003 national championship season. And the memory of having a magical season cut short by Butler in 2010 is fueling SU as it attempts to write its own history in 2012.Scoop Jardine, Kris Joseph, Brandon Triche and Southerland are the four SU regulars who experienced the heartbreaking loss to Butler. Now in Boston, the city from which Syracuse advanced to the Sweet 16 in 2003, they draw on that experience as motivation in hopes of avoiding further anguish.AdvertisementThis is placeholder text‘We just couldn’t believe it,’ Southerland said. ‘We kind of felt like we still didn’t believe it was over after we finished. It was kind of hard definitely. I’m not trying to experience that again.’Standing between Syracuse and a trip to the Elite Eight is a Wisconsin team that Triche likened to the 2009-10 Bulldogs that sent the Orange home early.Both Butler and Wisconsin are ferocious defensively, holding their opponents to miniscule point totals. Both Butler and Wisconsin have a roster bereft of NBA stars, relying instead on superior effort and coaching.Triche admitted that SU didn’t know a whole lot about that Butler team. So by the time the Cinderella Bulldogs wound up playing for the national title, Triche said the horrible feeling was worse.It could have been Syracuse.‘It was very sad. We were down,’ Triche said. ‘Even though we lost (Arinze Onuaku), we really thought that we could win.‘Them making it to the finals that year made it feel worse because it could have been us.’Wisconsin, though, is a slightly different story. The Badgers have caught the attention of many around the country this season with a pair of wins over Indiana, a win over Vanderbilt and the No. 14 national ranking before the start of the NCAA Tournament. Holding its opponents to less than 53 points per game has been quite the statement as well.The Bo Ryan-led squad is by no means a Cinderella. Instead, it’s arguably the best defensive team in the country.The Badgers will push the Orange on Thursday, but this time Southerland and Triche said Syracuse is ready to push right back.The weight of the disappointing loss in 2010 and the surprising early exit to Marquette a year ago have festered within the SU players to drive them through this final stretch of basketball after the best regular season in program history.Only twice since 1990 has the Orange advanced past the Sweet 16, and Southerland said it has been a goal for the team since he stepped on campus three years ago.‘We had great players and all. We’ve just never made it past the Sweet 16,’ he said. ‘Especially our first year, our freshman year. It’s tough, but it’s something we wanted to get through and something we want to work on and get further.’Despite the slew of questions and comparisons about Butler the Syracuse players faced in their media session Wednesday, assistant coach Gerry McNamara said this group is only playing for themselves.What happened in 2010, 2011 or even back in 2003 – when McNamara played a key role in SU winning its only national title – shouldn’t be on the minds of this year’s players, he said.Instead, it’s about this group writing its own history.Said McNamara: ‘These guys need to worry about this year. That’s all that matters. They’ve been able to do that to this point, so why change it?’[email protected] Facebook Twitter Google+center_img Published on March 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm Contact Michael: [email protected] | @Michael_Cohen13last_img read more

Read More »