States without protection for inter-faith, inter-caste couples in contempt of SC: Mihir Desai

Mihir Desai. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

Prominent human rights lawyer Mihir Desai has said that all States which have failed to put in place mechanisms for the protection of inter-faith and inter-caste couples are in contempt of the Supreme Court. He was referring to the apex court’s 2018 Shaktivahini judgment, which directed all States to establish protective measures for such couples, including helplines, special cells, and safe houses.

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.