1960 (9) TMI 109 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of Rule 27 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules and provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an Engineer in the Public Works Department, sought permission to marry a second wife due to his first wife's inability to bear a son. The State Government, relying on Rule 27, directed him not to marry without permission. The appellant challenged the rule and provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act under Article 25, claiming it infringed his freedom of religion.

2. The court noted that the impugned provisions were saved by Article 25(2)(b) and that marrying a second wife was not an obligatory part of Hindu religion. Adoption was considered a valid alternative. The petition was rejected by the lower court on these grounds.

3. The appellant argued that Article 25(1) guaranteed freedom of religious practices, including marrying a second wife for religious beliefs. He contended that Article 25(2)(b) should not be used to save laws affecting religious beliefs. The court held that Article 25 does not provide an absolute guarantee and must be read as a whole.

4. The court emphasized that Article 25(2) acts as an exception to Article 25(1), providing additional restrictions. Legislation like the Hindu Marriage Act, aimed at social welfare and reform, is not affected by Article 25(1). The court found no conflict between the two clauses and upheld the validity of the impugned provisions.

5. The court interpreted Article 25(2)(b) broadly, encompassing laws related to social welfare, social reform, and opening Hindu religious institutions. The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act were deemed to fall within the ambit of social welfare and reform, justifying their validity under Article 25.

6. Ultimately, the court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's petition, stating that the impugned provisions did not violate Article 25 and were protected by Article 25(2)(b). The State's refusal to grant permission for a second marriage was deemed justified, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.