Guwahati, Dec 4: The Gauhati High Court has issued a notice to the Assam government, directing it to respond within four weeks to a petition challenging the legality of the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024.
The petition, filed by the All Assam Muslim Marriages and Divorces Registrar and the All Assam Kazi Association, contests the state’s decision to repeal the Assam Muslim Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1935, arguing that it violates Muslim personal law, Shariat law, and Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom.
The petition contends that the new act abolishes the traditional role of qazis in registering Muslim marriages, infringing on the livelihood and religious rights of the Muslim community.
Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which protect religious freedom and autonomy of religious affairs, are cited as being violated.
Petitioners assert that the 1935 Act was amended in 2010 to make the registration of Muslim marriages mandatory, contradicting the state’s claim that no such requirement existed.
The repeal is described as arbitrary and undertaken without providing sufficient reasoning or public debate.
The petitioners had previously submitted a memorandum to the Assam Chief Minister, proposing amendments to the 1935 Act, including setting the legal marriage age at 21 for men and 18 for women.
The Assam Repealing Ordinance, 2024, was enacted without allowing legislative debate or discussion, a move the petitioners argue undermines democratic processes and religious freedoms.
The Assam government, in February 2024, decided to repeal the Assam Muslim Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1935, citing administrative inefficiency and the lack of a contemporary legal framework. However, critics argue that this decision undermines constitutional guarantees and disregards existing Muslim personal law frameworks.
The Gauhati High Court has sought the Assam government’s justification for the new law and its decision to repeal the earlier act. A detailed response is expected within four weeks, following which the court will deliberate on the petition’s merits.
This case highlights the tension between state legislation and religious practices, raising critical questions about the intersection of law, tradition, and constitutional rights. Further developments are awaited.
