The recent proposed amendment to Gujarat’s Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, is a troubling expansion of state involvement in the most private and intimate choices of adult citizens. Under the  proposed amendment, a multi-layered verification process is to be introduced into marriage registration, including notification in the public domain and to blood relatives. Framed as a measure of transparency and offering safeguards against marital deception – particularly “love-jihad” – the amendment raises serious concerns about privacy, autonomy and the growing architecture of state surveillance over personal life. By mandating public notification, the new rules place individuals under a form of surveillance that goes far beyond the purpose of record-keeping. For couples in inter-caste or inter-faith marriages, this public disclosure could invite social pressure or even threats to their safety, raising serious concerns under constitutional protections of privacy, personal liberty, and the right to marry a person of one’s choice.

This amendment follows the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act 2021, parts of which were stayed by the Gujarat High Court. The court had held that provisions treating conversion for the purpose of marriage as automatically suspect could interfere with an individual’s right to choose a partner. India’s Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted, in landmark judgments such as Shafin Jahan v Union of India (2018) and Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) to include the freedom to choose one’s partner. Gujarat’s proposed amendment is also at odds with the ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court had held that decisional autonomy in matters relating to family, marriage and intimate choices is protected under the right to privacy. Further, in Laxmibai Chandaragi B v. State of Karnataka (2021), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that consenting adults have the right to marry a person of their choice, regardless of familial or social approval.

The proposed amendment reflects a broader pattern of expanding state surveillance and scrutiny over intimate decisions. Laws such as the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020, pejoratively described as the “love-jihad” law, were introduced on the premise that inter-faith marriages are taking place under coercion or manipulation, thereby justifying state intervention in these matters. Similarly, more stringent rules were introduced in Uttar Pradesh wherein couples could only register their marriage in a district where at least one of the spouses or their parents live, thereby making elopement to marry more difficult. Further, under the new rules, couples would  also have to submit an affidavit from the priest who solemnised the wedding, containing their full details, along with a video recording of the ceremony. Similar measures, under The Special Marriage Act 1954, have subjected inter-faith marriages to long waiting periods, tedious verification processes and intrusive inquiries.

More recently, Gujarat has passed the Uniform Civil Code Bill 2026, mandating registration of all marriages (with a fine of up to ₹10,000 for non-compliance within 60 days) and live-in relationships (punishable by up to 3 months imprisonment or ₹10,000 fine). These measures, although presented as mere bureaucratic formality, often create an environment of fear and suspicion around relationships that depart from social norms. Further, the implications of such laws and policies are not abstract. For many couples, particularly those in inter-caste or inter-faith relationships, privacy is not merely a preference but a safeguard against harassment, arrest, or even violence. India’s long and troubled history of “honour crimes” targeting individuals who marry outside their caste or faith makes these fears all too real. In such contexts, public notification may expose couples to precisely the risks that constitutional protections are meant to guard against. The right to choose one’s partner, as constitutional courts in India have repeatedly affirmed, is a core aspect of individual liberty. By regulating who can love and marry, Gujarat’s proposed amendment tests the limits of personal autonomy under the law.