SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(Bom) 88

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CHAGLA, GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
State of Bombay
Versus
Narasu Appa Mali
Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 1951 (with Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1951; Criminal Ref. No. 16 of 1951 and Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 198 of 1951)
Decided On : 24-07-1951

Advocates:
C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor General, G.N. Joshi and H.M. Choksi, Govt. Pleader, for the State; C.K. Shah (Appointed), for Accused.

The State has the power to enact social reforms that are based on reasonable classifications and that do not interfere with fundamental rights.

Headnote:

BOMBAY PREVENTION OF HINDU BIGAMOUS MARRIAGES ACT, 1946 - VALIDITY - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION - REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION - SOCIAL REFORM - PERSONAL LAW - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Fact of the Case:

The Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946, was challenged on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners argued that the Act discriminated against Hindus by criminalizing bigamy among Hindus while allowing it among Muslims, and that it interfered with the religious freedom of Hindus by prohibiting polygamy, which is permitted under Hindu personal law.

Finding of the Court:

The Court upheld the validity of the Act, holding that it did not violate any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court held that the Act was a reasonable classification based on the social and cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims, and that it was a legitimate exercise of the State's power to enact social reforms. The Court also held that the Act did not interfere with the religious freedom of Hindus, as polygamy is not an essential part of Hindu religion.

Issues: 1. Whether the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946, violates Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Act discriminates against Hindus by criminalizing bigamy among Hindus while allowing it among Muslims? 3. Whether the Act interferes with the religious freedom of Hindus by prohibiting polygamy, which is permitted under Hindu personal law?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act is a reasonable classification based on the social and cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims, and it is a legitimate exercise of the State's power to enact social reforms. 2. The Act does not interfere with the religious freedom of Hindus, as polygamy is not an essential part of Hindu religion.

Final Decision: The Court upheld the validity of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946.

Judgement

Chagla, C.J. :- These two appeals and one application for revision and one reference raise the same question with regard to the validity of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946. In appeal No. 231 of 1951 the Sessions Judge of South Satara held that the Act was invalid and acquitted the accused. Government have preferred an appeal from the order of acquittal. In appeal No. 173 of 1951 the Magistrate, First Class, Kaira, also took the same view and from his order of acquittal Government have also appealed. In the application for revision the Resident Magistrate, Mehsana, convicted the accused under S. 5 of the Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. An appeal was preferred to the Sessions Judge, Mehsana, and the learned Session Judge dismissed the appeal. In reference No. 16 of 1951 the Sessions Judge, South Satara, has referred to us the order of conviction passed by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Miraj convicting accused No. 2 under S. 5 of the Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act and accused Nos. 3 and 4 under S. 6 of the Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one day and a fine of Rs. 50.

2. The Act is placed on the statute book in order to provide for the prevention of bigamous marriages among Hindus, and by the definition section "Hindus" include Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists followers of the Arya or Brahmo Samaj or convert Hindus. Section 4 renders bigamous marriages void if they are contracted within the State after the coming into force of the Act and if they are contracted beyond the limits of the State after the coming into force of the Act and either or both the contracting parties to such marriage are domiciled in the State. Section 5 provides that notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary, whoever not being a minor (and a minor is a person under 16 years of age) contracts a bigamous marriage shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 6 penalizes persons who perform, conduct or abet any bigamous marriage in the State. Section 7, with which we are not concerned, provides penalty for a person having charge of a minor concerned in a bigamous marriage, and S. 9 makes the offences cognisable.

3. The Act is challenged as contravening the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution. As Art. 25 has a considerable bearing on the argument advanced in respect of Arts. 14 and 15, it would be better perhaps to deal with that article first. Article 25 (1) confers upon all persons the right to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. That right is not an absolute or unlimited right. In the first place, it is subject to public order, morality and health. In the second place, it is subject to the other provisions of Part III - in other words, the right to profess, practise and propagate religion can only be exercised without contravening any of the fundamental rights embodied in Part III of the Constitution. The right under Art. 25 (1) is further subject to the right of the State to make any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice, and it is further subject to the right of the State to provide by legislation for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

4. It has been urged before us that among Hindus the institution of marriage is a sacrament, and that marriage is part of Hindu religion which is regulated by what is laid down in the Shastras. It is further pointed out that a Hindu marries not merely for association with his mate, but in order to perpetuate his family by the birth of sons. It is only when a son is born t













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top