States without protection for inter-faith, inter-caste couples in contempt of SC: Mihir Desai
In an interview with The Hindu, Mr. Desai emphasised the urgent need for a national law to protect the rights of individuals entering interfaith and intercaste marriages. 'An overwhelming majority of the States do not have the mechanism to protect such couples. In fact, by not having these mechanisms, they are in complete violation of the Supreme Court orders. They are in contempt,' he said.
Mr. Desai drew a parallel with the Vishakha guidelines on workplace sexual harassment, noting that codification into law could provide the much-needed legal framework. 'If a law is properly worded and drafted in the right spirit, it would be very welcome,' he added, while expressing doubt about the political will for such legislation.
The lawyer was speaking in the context of a recent order issued by the Maharashtra government, which laid out detailed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the protection of inter-faith and inter-caste couples. The order followed sustained monitoring by the Bombay High Court in response to a petition filed by Mr. Desai on behalf of a Hindu man and a Muslim woman who were forced to flee to Delhi in 2022 following threats over their decision to marry.
The couple approached the Bombay High Court in September 2023, seeking protection and safe housing. After nearly two years of court-monitored proceedings, the Maharashtra government submitted SOPs that satisfied the court, leading to the disposal of the petition.
Mr. Desai expressed gratitude to the High Court, stating that the State's response would not have materialised without judicial intervention. 'On its own, the State government would not have acted - especially in a political environment where there is hostility towards inter-faith marriages, and a focus on so-called 'freedom of religion' laws that are effectively aimed at curbing conversions, rather than safeguarding individual autonomy,' he said.
Systemic Patriarchy and Social Backlash
Reflecting on the broader societal landscape, Mr. Desai said, 'Even today, inter-caste marriages are shunned. Just look at the matrimonial columns. There is fierce resistance to inter-faith marriages not just from families, but also from communal forces across all religions.'
He noted that the threats and violence faced by such couples reflect deep-rooted patriarchal and regressive attitudes. 'The idea that an adult woman has the agency to choose her partner is still difficult for many to accept. That is how patriarchy operates in India,' he said.
Need for Proactive State Intervention
Mr. Desai also criticised the general reluctance of the State to proactively defend the individual's fundamental right to choose a life partner. 'The State needs to step in - even if it means confronting societal pressure - to uphold the rule of law and constitutional rights,' he said.
The Shaktivahini judgment, delivered in the context of caste-based violence and khap panchayats in Haryana, recognised that inter-faith couples also face significant threats across the country. The guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2018 called for: (1) helplines to report threats and seek immediate assistance, (2) special cells for lodging complaints, and (3) safe houses for couples at risk of violence.
This week, Maharashtra became one of the few States to formally implement all three components.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
9 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Why the argument that dog lovers are ‘elite' is flawed
A vocal minority of liberal elites are protecting dogs at the cost of the silent dog-oppressed majority. That's what the central government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, told the Supreme Court on August 14. Mehta was tweaking the Narendra Modi government's favourite line: that the majority supports sweeping and harsh moves, like bulldozer 'justice', and only the elite 'Khan Market Gang' is whining about human rights, civil liberties and due process. What is troubling is that many who oppose the arbitrary and illegal bulldozer demolitions as summary justice are singing the same tune as Mehta when it comes to the Supreme Court's order on removing stray dogs from Delhi's streets and housing them permanently in shelters. They say that elite 'dog lovers' are silent when it comes to atrocities against the poor and oppressed human beings. They share images of children savaged by dogs and declare that to oppose the Supreme Court order is to defend such savagery. The notion that it is 'elites' who care for street dogs is itself elitist, making working class people invisible. Why can't these dog-lovers take stray dogs into their own homes, asked Justice JB Pardiwala, one of the Supreme Court judges who issued the order. This begs the question: what is a 'stray dog' and what is a 'home'? A child in a slum tenement cannot keep her beloved dog in her 'home'. It seems she must suffer a traumatic separation as municipal authorities string her dog up and carry it off, for the common good. Just as she is expected to watch her home being bulldozed to the ground for the common good. Pardiwala's question echoes the one trolls ask me on social media when I oppose the drive to cleanse the National Capital Region of 'Bangladeshis': 'If you love infiltrators why don't you keep them in your home?' When one sees flood-affected residents on television screens and in online images each year, it is common to see someone holding a puppy or kitten above their head as they swim the flood waters to safety. These people can't carry much, they try to take the bare essentials only, but why do they bother to take an animal that is not of 'use', like a chicken or a goat? When the Covid-19 lockdown hit, pourakarmikas – municipal sanitation workers in Karnataka, all Dalit women – asked union leaders, 'Who will feed our dogs?' Many of them have a dog who accompanied them on their cleaning beat. Lawyers in Bengaluru who petitioned courts for powrakarmikas' needs during the lockdown, included the appeal for permission to feed the street dogs. In my DDA colony in South Delhi, there is a dog who came in as an injured puppy. He is huge now with a ferocious bark, but absurdly scared of all humans except Shyam Singh, one of the security guards at whose heels he can always be found. Singh worries: what if the civic body's van comes for Ludo when he's not on duty? A textile worker couple from Mumbai used their belated severance compensation to buy a small piece of land near the seashore in Ratnagiri, where they rent cheap rooms to tourists. A group of us, looking into protests against the Jaitapur nuclear plant nearby, were visiting the area. The woman who sat at the tea shop in front, turned to a big black dog next to her and said something that sounded like a request. He roused and shook his rather elderly self, and she gestured that we should follow him. He led us through the undergrowth all the way to the beach – something he clearly did for all guests. In a Delhi slum, which was recently facing the bulldozers, trade union marches through the industrial area would almost inevitably be joined by the community dogs. Likewise, there was a dog at Ramlila Maidan who would join every rally all the way to Jantar Mantar. The writers of the Mahabharata surely knew dogs – and their eagerness to join 'packs' of human beings on the move – very well: thus the lovely story of the dog who stayed with Yudhishthira on the dangerous road to heaven. The istriwala and the chaiwala are just as anguished by the Supreme Court diktat and terrified for their canine companions, as are those the honourable justices called 'dog lovers'. For them, a dog is a friend and companion, not an object that they bought from a breeder on a whim and might abandon when the novelty wears off. Across the class divide, people volunteer their time, money and care to get dogs vaccinated and sterilised – they do the government's job. The 'dog lovers are elite' discourse is also ominously familiar. When I argued against capital punishment for rape, television anchors demand to know why I support rapists who brutalised the young woman in Delhi in December 2012. When I protest against the custodial public execution of rape suspects by the Telangana police, they declare that liberal elite feminists defend rapists rather than their victims. When I protest the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act then and the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act now to persecute dissenters, I am branded an elite 'urban Naxal' who defends terrorists. And, of course, I am accused of liberal elitism when I protest a judicial order on dogs that ignores the Animal Birth Control rules and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals law, and threatens the civil liberties of ordinary citizens who display their civic conscience by implementing those rules. One points out that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi doesn't even have enough shelters for dogs to recuperate for five days after they are sterilised. How can they make room to house hundreds of dogs? One presents the wealth of evidence drawn from all over the world to prove that capital punishment, fake encounters and draconian anti-terror laws worsen the problems they claim to solve. And one demands that governments implement the measures that have a proven record of lowering rape-murders and violent crimes in general. Just as one points out that mass capture, relocation, culling of dogs has been tried many times in India and elsewhere in the world and is a proven failure. And that the World Health Organization's Expert Consultation on Rabies has consistently maintained that Animal Birth Control and vaccination programmes are the only proven, effective ways to curb rabies and manage stray dog populations. But such solutions do not give the satisfying dopamine rush that draconian quick-fixes provide. Note that in each of these cases, it is the advocates of draconian and violent 'solutions' that appeal to emotions of fear and vengeance, while activists and experts appeal to reason and rely on evidence. Restraint and reason usually lose popularity contests and are no match for moral panics fuelled by mass fear. It is ironic, then, to hear people say that it is liberal elites who want their emotional attachment to dogs to prevail over public health and safety. Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan used an intemperate language saturated with emotional vindictiveness. They have shown the way and shaped the script for public outrage and contempt against the law and rules. I worry: why has the new bench set up by the Chief Justice of India reserved its judgement on the petition for a stay on the previous order? A stay order preserves the status quo and is effective only when it is urgently implemented to prevent a potential injustice. By keeping its opinion on the stay to itself, the new bench is allowing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to keep picking up hundreds of dogs all over Delhi. Will the stable doors be closed only after the dogs are locked away and the injustice is done? Kavita Krishnan is a feminist and left activist, and author of Fearless Freedom (Penguin India, 2020).
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
How ‘honour' killings in India are reinforced and legitimised
Caste in India is not an individual problem — it is a deeply rooted social phenomenon. Caste survives and thrives not just because individuals insist on it, but because families, communities, and entire social structures continue to enforce and legitimise it, knowingly or otherwise. At the heart of this caste endurance lie social customs passed down and protected within households. Children grow up internalising boundaries — who to talk to, who to marry, who to avoid — long before they can even articulate why. As a result, the caste system remains one of the most resilient social frameworks in India. 'Honour' killings One of the biggest threats to the rigidity of caste has been social justice interventions. When marginalised communities, particularly Dalits, gain access to quality education and secure meaningful employment, it opens the gates for their integration into mainstream society. With that, a foundational shift begins. No longer confined to the margins, the oppressed now begin to interact with caste-Hindu society on an equal footing — in workplaces, colleges, cities, and most importantly, in relationships. This has created a new frontier of social tension: romantic unions that cross caste lines, especially those involving Dalit men and dominant caste women. These unions represent not just love or rebellion but a direct challenge to centuries-old caste hierarchies. And for many conservative families, that challenge is intolerable. States like Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Kerala — where Dalit communities have seen relatively greater empowerment — also record higher rates of inter-caste marriages. According to the India Human Development Survey (IHDS-II), the national rate of inter-caste marriages stands at around 5%, but States with empowered Dalit populations show higher numbers. Ironically, these are also the States with increased incidents of honour killings. This paradox reveals a disturbing truth: honour killings occur not where casteism is strongest, but where it is most threatened. In States where the oppressed still maintain their 'status quo,' violence is less — not because casteism is absent, but because it remains unchallenged. Thus, caste-based violence is not a sign of persistent hierarchy alone, but of hierarchy under siege. Tamil Nadu's caste paradox When caste killings happen, democratic voices among the public are strong in Tamil Nadu as the State boasts a strong and vibrant civil society. At the same time, caste is glorified on social media. Due to the anonymity such platforms offer, some accounts go so far as to defend caste killings. How do we understand this paradox? Perhaps in Tamil Nadu, while people possess a collective consciousness against casteism, shaped by decades of social justice politics, individual attitudes may not always align in the same way. The State's anti-caste culture is collectively progressive but individually conflicted. In public, caste violence is rejected but in private conversations, WhatsApp groups, and through anonymous posts, caste continues to dictate social preferences, marriage alliances, and 'honourable behaviour.' This paradox does not mean that Tamil Nadu's anti-caste movement is a failure. It means that one is living in a liminal space — between tradition and transformation. What we see on social media is not just caste pride, it's also the fear of losing inherited power and the anxiety of cultural change. On family and caste There's a popular belief that the caste system survives mainly because of political parties or caste-based organisations. While these certainly reinforce caste divisions in the public sphere, they are not the roots of the system. Caste survives because it is protected and transmitted within the family. Through everyday customs, rituals, marriage arrangements, social expectations, and inherited prejudices, caste becomes part of a child's consciousness long before they can question it. This is why caste has remained transgenerational, even in the face of rising education, urbanisation and exposure to new ideas. However, the psychological and cultural importance of the 'family' itself is changing, especially among adolescents. Around the world, particularly in countries like South Korea and Japan, we are seeing dramatic shifts: marriage rates are falling, fertility rates are at historic lows, and the traditional family unit is losing its central place in people's lives. Instead, new models of relationship — open partnerships, cohabitation, single living, and self-parenting — are emerging. India's urban youth are slowly reflecting this trend too. Many adolescents today are increasingly prioritising individual growth, emotional well-being, and autonomy over traditional family obligations. As the value of the family unit weakens, so too does the primary mechanism through which caste is enforced and reproduced. In other words, if the family becomes less central in shaping relationships and social norms, caste may lose its strongest and oldest vehicle of survival. This doesn't mean that caste will disappear overnight. But it suggests that the cultural infrastructure that sustains it is slowly being dismantled — not by revolution, but by changing lifestyles, shifting emotional priorities, and evolution of the self. Caste in India is at crossroads. On one hand, we see violent reactions and online glorification. On the other, we witness strong democratic voices against honour killings and a new generation slowly withdrawing from social values. Tamil Nadu symbolises this contradiction in its most vivid form — a State where both the loudest resistance to casteism and the quietest internal caste pride coexist. But it also offers hope: if this contradiction is acknowledged, addressed, and challenged, especially through engagement and digital counter-narratives, we may finally move toward a society where caste loses its grip not only on our systems, but on our hearts and minds. Sivabalan Elangovan is Professor and Head, Dept of Psychiatry, Dr MGR Educational and Research Institute.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bihar CEO publishes list of deleted electors from first SIR draft list after SC order
Bihar's CEO, Vinod Singh Gunjiyal, has released details of electors removed from draft electoral rolls following a Supreme Court directive. The list, available on the Bihar CEO website and at District Election Officer offices, includes those excluded from the August 1st draft roll due to reasons like death, permanent relocation, absence, or repeated entry. Electors can search by EPIC number. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Bihar's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Vinod Singh Gunjiyal , on Sunday released the details of all electors removed from the draft electoral rolls in the first phase of the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the state. The publication follows the Supreme Court's directive to provide the list of deletions along with reasons for to an official statement from the CEO, the list includes electors who were part of the 2025 electoral roll before the draft publication but were excluded in the draft roll published on August 1. The reasons for deletion include 'Deceased', 'Permanently Shifted', 'Absent', or 'Repeated Entry.'The complete list has been made available on the Bihar CEO website and at all District Election Officer offices. The statement further informed that voters can search their names using EPIC numbers, while booth-wise lists can be downloaded. Each entry provides the elector's name, EPIC number, father's name, and reason for deletion."In light of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.08.2025…, it is hereby notified that the list of such electors whose names were included in the Electoral Roll of the year 2025 (before the draft publication) but are not included in the draft roll published on 01.08.2025, along with reasons (Deceased/Permanently Shifted/Absent/Repeated Entry), has been published on the websites of the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, and all District Election Officers of the State of Bihar," read the statement.
