logo
Why Arya Samaj marriages are under the scanner of courts

Why Arya Samaj marriages are under the scanner of courts

Indian Express2 days ago
Also by Vineet Bhalla
The Allahabad High Court last week directed the Uttar Pradesh government to investigate how 'fake Arya Samaj Societies' that solemnise marriages without verifying the age of the bride and the groom, and in violation of the state's anti-conversion law, 'have flourished throughout the State'.
While hearing a case in which a Muslim man is accused of kidnapping, forcibly marrying, and committing statutory rape on a minor Hindu girl, Justice Prashant Kumar said that many marriages in the state, including those officiated by the Arya Samaj, bypass mandatory procedures under the UP anti-conversion law and marriage registration rules. The accused had claimed to have got married at an Arya Samaj temple.
The Allahabad HC's directives are the latest in a series of judicial orders that have called for a scrutiny of marriages solemnised by the Arya Samaj. Such weddings are granted legal sanction under the 88-year-old Arya Marriage Validation Act.
The Arya Samaj was formally established by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in 1875 as a Hindu revivalist movement. It gained prominence in northern India, especially Punjab (including present-day Pakistan), in the late 19th century.
Among other things, the Arya Samaj made the very first attempts to convert persons from other faiths or ideologies to its version of Vedic, monotheistic Hinduism through a process it called 'shuddhi' (purification).
One of the ways it facilitated this was by having a progressive view of inter-caste and even interfaith marriages. In effect, till the Special Marriage Act, 1954 came into force, the Arya Samaj provided the only way for a Hindu to marry out of caste or religion and to still retain their caste.
In 1937, the Arya Marriage Validation Act was passed to 'remove doubts' and recognise the validity of Arya Samaj marriages. These weddings take place as per a specific set of Hindu rituals, but only require the bride and groom to be of marriageable age and declare themselves to be Arya Samajis — regardless of their caste or religion.
The 1937 law states: 'Notwithstanding any provision of Hindu Law, usage or custom to the contrary, no marriage contracted whether before or after the commencement of this Act between two persons being at the time of the marriage Arya Samajists shall be invalid or shall be deemed over to have been invalid by reason only of the fact that the parties at any time belonged to different castes or different sub-castes of Hindus or that either or both of the parties at any time before the marriage belonged to a religion other than Hinduism.'
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — which covers not just Hindus but also Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs — recognises Arya Samaj marriages. Those belonging to other religions simply need to convert to Hinduism before the wedding.
However, several Arya Samaj organisations complete this conversion ritual expeditiously. This means that Arya Samaj weddings are fast, often not taking more than a couple of hours. This, along with the ease of paperwork and relaxed requirements, make Arya Samaj weddings popular among eloping or runaway couples, who often belong to different castes or religions.
Interfaith couples also have the option to marry under the SMA, which allows marriage without the couple having to give up their faith. However, under the SMA, couples must give a 30-day public notice before they marry, leaving them vulnerable to harassment from their families or the authorities.
A petition on whether Arya Samaj marriages must comply with the requirements of the Special Marriage Act has been pending before the Supreme Court since 2022.
However, since a number of BJP-ruled states have passed stringent anti-conversion laws over the last 10 years, several HCs have raised questions on the validity of Arya Samaj marriages. This is because the anti-conversion laws bar alternative legal processes for marriage involving religious conversion.
For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, Section 6 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 renders void any marriage that is preceded by an unlawful or procedurally non-compliant religious conversion. Sections 8 and 9 of the law require both a pre-conversion declaration 60 days before marriage and a post-conversion declaration within a specified timeframe to the district magistrate. The law also mandates an inquiry to verify the voluntariness and legality of the conversion process.
Section 12 of the Act places the burden of proof on an accused to demonstrate that their spouse's consent for conversion was not obtained illegally. The default legal assumption, thus, is that marriages through conversion are illegal and non-consensual.
This puts Arya Samaj marriages at odds with the UP anti-conversion law. The shuddhi performed before most interfaith Arya Samaj marriages does not comply with the onerous process for conversion prescribed in the anti-conversion law.
Courts have, over the last few years, expressed concern over the mass-scale solemnisation of marriages by Arya Samaj organisations without sticking to lawful conversion practices or verifying marriage eligibility conditions.
The Allahabad HC and Madhya Pradesh HC have ordered police investigations into instances where these organisations allegedly married minors using forged documents, and facilitated conversions without following procedures mandated by the anti-conversion laws of these states.
In 2022, the Supreme Court orally observed that the Arya Samaj has 'no business' issuing marriage certificates, while the Delhi High Court last year directed an Arya Samaj temple to use verified witnesses to ensure that marriages performed by the temple were genuine.
Justice Kumar referred to one such judgment by the Allahabad HC from May in his order on Thursday. He observed that the marriage between the Muslim man and the Hindu girl would be invalid because the girl was a minor and the man did not convert as per the UP anti-conversion law.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Only education can break chains of dictatorship, Sanatan': Kamal Haasan at Chennai event
‘Only education can break chains of dictatorship, Sanatan': Kamal Haasan at Chennai event

Hindustan Times

timean hour ago

  • Hindustan Times

‘Only education can break chains of dictatorship, Sanatan': Kamal Haasan at Chennai event

Actor and Rajya Sabha member Kamal Haasan has said, 'Education is the only weapon that can break the chains of dictatorship and Sanatanam.' The Makkal Needhi Maiam (MNM) leader was speaking at an event organised by the Agaram Foundation in Chennai on Sunday, ANI reported. On July 25, Haasan officially stepped into the Parliament for the first time, taking oath as a Rajya Sabha Member. (PTI) His comments come when a former minister in Maharashtra, too, held Sanatan Dharma responsible for caste atrocities, and sought to differentiate between it and Hinduism. 'There was never any religion called Sanatan Dharma. We are followers of Hindu Dharma,' NCP-SP leader Jitendra Awhad said. Haasan, in his speech on Sunday, said, 'Don't take anything else in your hands, only education. We cannot win without it, because the majority can make you lose. Majority (of) fools will make you lose… That's why we must hold on to it (education) firmly.' Haasan further said the introduction of NEET in 2017 for medical education admissions has 'reduced' chances for many students. The MP also recounted a recent interaction with Tamil Nadu chief minister M K Stalin, speaking about Agaram foundation work. "I told the chief minister that NGOs were not asking for anything like money — they're only asking for permission to work. He assured me that steps are being taken in that direction. I am proud to be involved in this cause," he said. Haasan concluded his address by stressing that the work of real leaders often goes unrecognised, despite the lasting impact they leave behind. 'Leadership isn't about staying in power, it's about making change happen, even if your name fades away with the waves.' Kamal Haasan's Parliament debut On July 25, Haasan officially stepped into the Parliament for the first time, taking oath as a Rajya Sabha Member. The actor took his oath in Tamil, which was met with enthusiastic desk-thumping from other MPs. Haasan's induction into the Rajya Sabha is a significant chapter in his political journey, marking his entry into national-level legislation. His nomination was supported by the ruling DMK-led alliance, which had promised him a seat in the Upper House in return for MNM's support during the 2024 general elections. Speaking to the media outside Parliament earlier that day, the 69-year-old actor-politician told reporters, "I am very proud and honoured," as reported by ANI. Prior to this, Haasan found himself at the centre of a controversy sparked during the 'Thug Life' movie audio launch event held in Chennai on May 24. During the event, he had reportedly remarked that 'Kannada was born out of Tamil". The statement triggered strong reactions in Karnataka, leading the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) to ban the film's release and seek an apology from Haasan. The actor issued a clarification, stating that he never meant to offend anyone and emphasised his admiration for the Kannada language and its people.

'Would you worship Bhagwa terrorist?': Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand says 'don't link terrorism with colour'; questions failure to find Malegaon blast culprits
'Would you worship Bhagwa terrorist?': Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand says 'don't link terrorism with colour'; questions failure to find Malegaon blast culprits

Time of India

time2 hours ago

  • Time of India

'Would you worship Bhagwa terrorist?': Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand says 'don't link terrorism with colour'; questions failure to find Malegaon blast culprits

Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand NEW DELHI: The debate over the use of the term 'Saffron Terror', that resumed after the July 31 verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, has refused to die down. Commenting on the term, Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Maharaj said that colour should not be linked with terrorism. He said those who associate a colour with terrorism are supporting terrorism. The Shankaracharya said, "A terrorist is a does colour mean with the word terrorism? Terrorism is terrorism, and a zero-tolerance policy should be adopted against it... The Malegaon blast happened, but you could not find the person who committed who look for colours in terrorism are supporters of terrorism." The term 'Bhagwa Aatank' or 'saffron terrorism' was first used after the 2002 Gujarat riots, as per a report by the news agency ANI. It was later used again after the 2008 Malegaon blasts. Some political leaders and parties used the term in their statements. The term was also mentioned by then home minister P Chidambaram in an official meeting with police officials. Congress leader Digvijay Singh also used the term in reference to the blasts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The Hindu pontiff also raised questions as to why the government is still unable to catch the culprits of the Malegaon blast case. "We do not wish to comment on the court's proceedings; whatever was done in court, we believe, must have been correct. If these people were found innocent in the court's view, then it is right they were acquitted. But the bigger problem is that the blast did not happen on its own — someone must have done it. Who was it? Where is the Government of India, the state government failing, that someone comes, carries out a blast, and leaves, and despite having vast resources and plenty of time, we are still unable to catch the culprit? This is a big slap on our capability that we cannot apprehend the guilty," he said. On July 31, a special NIA court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The court said that the prosecution could not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court also directed the Maharashtra government to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the families of the people who died in the blast, and Rs 50,000 to those who were injured. The seven accused were former MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhankar Dhar Dwivedi (also known as Shankaracharya), and Sameer Kulkarni. "All bail bonds of the accused are cancelled and sureties are discharged," the court said. The court examined 323 witnesses from the prosecution and eight from the defence before giving the verdict. All seven were acquitted of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Arms Act, and other related charges. The blast occurred on September 29, 2008, near a mosque in Bhikku Chowk area of Malegaon. An explosive device placed on a motorcycle went off, killing six people and injuring 95 others. Initially, 11 people were named as accused, but charges were framed against seven. The lawyer representing the victims' families has said that he will challenge the acquittal in the high court. Earlier, on the eve of the judgment in the Malegaon blast case, Union home minister Amit Shah had said in Parliament that no Hindu can ever be a terrorist. "I am proud to say, no Hindu can ever be a terrorist," Shah had said in Rajya Sabha. Meanwhile, after the NIA court judgment, former Maharashtra CM Prithviraj Chavan also spoke on the matter last week and said that he does not support the use of the term "saffron terror." "Don't use the term 'Saffron terrorism'. If you want to describe such acts, use 'Hindu fundamentalist' or 'Hindu terrorism' instead."

Malegaon Terror Blast Judgment: How the Crucial Witnesses Prosecution Dropped Impacted the Case
Malegaon Terror Blast Judgment: How the Crucial Witnesses Prosecution Dropped Impacted the Case

The Wire

time3 hours ago

  • The Wire

Malegaon Terror Blast Judgment: How the Crucial Witnesses Prosecution Dropped Impacted the Case

Government Sukanya Shantha Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. Mumbai: Since the trial for the 2008 Malegaon terror blast commenced in 2018, the prosecution examined 323 witnesses over a span of seven years. In the process, it dropped several witnesses, without providing any explanation as to why. The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court felt that these witnesses had been 'crucial' in establishing the chain of events. The decision to drop these witnesses, said special NIA judge A.K. Lahoti, gave the scope to draw an 'adverse inference' against the prosecution. The 1036-page judgement was made available on August 1, a day after the court acquitted all seven accused – including BJP leader and formed member of parliament Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army officer Prasad Purohit. In it, the court has raised questions about the prosecution's intention to drop several crucial witnesses who the court observed would have helped connect the missing dots in the case. Besides Thakur and Purohit, five other persons – Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi were also acquitted by the NIA court on July 31. The acquittal, the court has observed, was an outcome of the prosecution's failure to bring sufficient evidence. Even with 'grave suspicion', the court was not able to punish the accused persons, as 'mere suspicion is not enough', the court observed. According to the Anti-Terrorism Squad's case, which was later taken up by the NIA, Purohit has allegedly founded an organisation 'Abhinav Bharat' in 2006 and had attempted to establish a 'Hindu rashtra [nation]' which would have its own constitution, flag and 'government in exile' to be run from either Israel or Thailand. As a part of this agenda, the accused persons had come together and carried out the terror blast in Malegaon. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over the case soon after the earlier special public prosecutor Rohini Salian made a dramatic exit from the case in 2015 claiming that she was given instructions to 'go soft' on the accused persons charged in the case. She had claimed that she had received the instructions from 'higher ups'. Since Salian's exit, Rasal has been involved in the case for close to a decade. Among the many witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop are those who could have helped establish the movement of the alleged bombers days before the blast occurred. Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange One of the witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop without any cogent explanation is the person whose user ID and phone number was used to book tickets. According to the ATS's case, which was later taken over by the NIA which eventually filed a chargesheet in 2016, one witness named Vilok Sharma had used his account and his phone number to book the train tickets for two absconding accused persons, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, to travel from Pune to Indore. The two, according to both the ATS and the NIA, were accused of planting the bombs. Another person, Praveen Takkalki alias Pravin Mutalik, who the ATS had earlier accused of participating in the blast along with the two absconding accused was eventually discharged from the case after the NIA did not find any evidence against him in 2017. The judgment, narrating the NIA's case, points to Sharma's role in getting the tickets booked under fake names – Balwant Pathak and Mansingh – instead of their real names Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. Their travel to Pune, where the RDX explosive was allegedly procured from Purohit and then to Indore where the absconding accused had allegedly assembled, planted, fitted the explosive on the LML Freedom motorcycle, were fundamental to the investigation. Also read: Malegaon Blast Trial: 1,087 Hearings, Inexplicable Orders and Victims Who Refused to Relent The court said although the facts of the case create 'grave suspicion' against the accused, mere suspicion was not enough to convict them. The court finally had to give the 'benefit of the doubt' and acquit the seven persons facing trial in the case. The travel to Pune and Indore was crucial not just to establish the movement of the absconding accused but also their otherwise loosely hanging links with army officer Purohit, who now stands acquitted in the case. 'Thus, Vilok Sharma from the aforesaid point of view was a material witness who could narrate about ticket details, booking details and traveling history. But, the prosecution has not examined Vilok Sharma. The prosecution has dropped the said witness... Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on this point, it cannot be said that, from his account the railway tickets were booked in the name of two fake persons and those were actually booked by AA-1 (Kalsangra) and AA-2 (Dange).' It is not just Sharma's statement but also the fact that an absolutely essential certificate, to be procured under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, was not produced before the court. Without this certificate, electronic evidence is not admissible. The prosecution's case was that Kalsangra and Dange were in Pune around the same time as when Purohit had allegedly procured the RDX, i.e. August 8 to August 11. These finer details of the conspiracy and procurement of the explosive needed step-by-step building up of the evidence. The prosecution, according to the NIA judge, had dropped that. Sharma was dropped from the list of witnesses even though his name cropped up in the examination of other witnesses, especially a senior railway executive and an ATS officer. The judgement says: 'Thus, only Vilok Sharma was the witness who could say about the booking of the aforesaid ticket. The material witness Vilok Sharma is not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of material witness without any explanation give rise to draw the adverse inference against prosecution.' Another witness Pramod Deshmukh, who according to the investigating agency had seen Kalsangra and Dange had seen them in Pune around August 8 and 11, was an 'eye witness' but dropped by the witness. Another important witness, the court points out, was the policeman who diffused the detonator but was not examined as a witness. Judge Lahoti writes: 'Officer API Sachin Gawade who has actually diffused the detonator as per the case of prosecution is not examined as witness. He was the only person who could narrate the exact condition of the detonator, the procedure carried out by him for diffusing the detonator and collection of remnants after diffusing. The non-examination of material witnesses give rise to adverse inference." 'Missing' In 2016, the NIA had informed the court that around 13 witness statements, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before a magistrate, had gone missing. The central agency had attributed this sudden and suspicious disappearance of documents to their constant ferrying between the trial and the higher courts. While the original copies of these statements had gone missing, the NIA had sought permission before the NIA court to use the photocopies of the document – which the court had granted. This permission was challenged by one of the accused persons in the Bombay high court, which later stayed the trial court's order and had directed the NIA to file a fresh application authenticating that the photocopies were indeed a replica of the original. Interestingly, the NIA did not file that application, and the witnesses were examined solely on whether their testimonies were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. In the absence of these Section 164 statements, the magistrate who recorded them should have been examined. However, the prosecution decided against it. The judgment notes, 'The aforesaid statements (recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) were neither presented to the witnesses nor was the concerned magistrate examined in such circumstances.' These 13 statements were crucial for proving the conspiracy meetings, the movements of the alleged bombers, and other key aspects of the case. At least two of these witnesses were essential to prove the conspiracy meetings where conversations purportedly on revenge on Muslims were discussed. While it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present important witnesses in court, when the prosecution fails to do so, the court could have done it. Section 311 of the CrPC empowers the court to summon witnesses it deems essential for the case. Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. The prosecution examined a total of 323 witnesses in the case, of whom 39 turned hostile. However, public prosecutor Rasal did not initiate perjury proceedings against them, and nor did the court make any significant observations regarding the witnesses who refused to adhere to their original statements. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store