FACTS
The Appellant was an engineer employed with the Public Works Department, UP who got married in 1934 and a few years later a girl child was born to them. However after this the appellant’s wife began to miscarry and a medical test revealed that she was incapable of bearing any more children. The appellant’s family being devout Hindu’s believed that according to the Dharma Shastra’s, salvation was impossible without a son and in the absence of a male child, a number of religious obligations would remain unfulfilled. This is when the appellant decided to marry a second time in order to have a son from the second wife, a decision to which initially the wife consented and then later on changed her mind and appealed against this decision of her husband to the State Government. The appellant also went to seek permission from the State Government for a second marriage. To this, the State Government, on behalf of the wife quoted Section 27 of the Government Servant Conduct Rules, which stated that you cannot marry another without the consent of your first wife. Around the same time, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 came into being Section 17 of which abolished a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife.
Hence the permission sought by the appellant was refused, a consequence of which he filed a writ petition, where he sought to challenge the validity Rule 27 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules and Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He challenged these two provisions on the ground that these infringed upon Article 25 of the Constitution, the Freedom of Religion, which allowed him to profess and propagate his religion in the way he deems fit and prayed that his application be decided in accordance with the personal law laid down by the Dharma Shastra’s.
CONTENTIONS
- The appellant stated that Article 25(b) not only guarantees the freedom of beliefs but also protects all religious practices in pursuance of such beliefs. He stated that attaining salvation through the birth of a son was one such belief and the marrying another wife was in pursuance of one such belief. The bigamy laws put an unjustified restriction on this very right.
- Clause 2 of Article 25 acts as an exception to Clause 1 and the argument was that the two laws should be in accordance with each other and one clause cannot take away the right given by the first clause and in case of a conflict between the two clauses, the first one should prevail.
- The appellant’s final argument was that the operation of Clause 2(b) was to be confined to matters of social welfare and reform of Hindu Religious Institutions and any law affecting religious practises of the people was beyond their purview.
ISSUES
- Whether or not Section 17 and Rule 27 are in infringement of Article 25 of the Constitution?
- Is the bigamy law in contention to the Right to Freedom of Religion promised by the Constitution?
HELD
The final judgment by the Allahabad High Court held against the appellant, with the court negating the earlier submissions by the appellant. The court primarily negated these submissions on three counts.
- With respect of the submission that the bigamy laws were contrary to the Freedom of Religion, the court held that, it must be made known that the Constitution does not giver absolute or unrestricted guarantee with respect to the Freedom of Religion. Plus one clause of the Constitutions cannot be read at the expense of the other. That means that in Article 25, Clause 1 cannot be read in isolation, you must read it along with Clause 2 in order to understand the extent of the Religious Freedom provided to us. They must be read in conjunction with one another.
- Secondly, the court stated that there was no conflict between the two clauses contained in Article 25. To understand that they must be read in harmony with one another. So while Clause 1 provides citizens with the right to profess and propagate their religion, Clause 2 sets certain restrictions on their right to freedom. Hence the question of which clause would prevail in case of a conflict does not arise.
- The learned judge stated that the bigamy section of the Hindu Marriage Act was enacted as a measure of social welfare and reform. He further stated that as to what counts as social welfare and reform, the legislature of the country would be the best and final authority. Moreover nowhere had the appellant contested that the legislation was not in the capacity of social reform or welfare.
- Finally the Court held that Clause 25(b) was not intended to be limited to any one religion and reads the same for all religions. If confined to any one religion, it would go against the secular aspirations enshrined in the constitution.
The petition of the appellant was held to be rightly dismissed and the appeal failed. It was accordingly dismissed with costs.