With the vision of creating India a socio-welfare state committed for the upholding and protection of the fundamental inalienable rights of all, Part III as the Magna Carta of India was enshrined in the Constitution. And by taking cognizance of the different socio-cultural and historical vulnerabilities associated with women’s right to equality under Art. 14, right to non-discrimination under Art. 15 and state’s power to make special provisions for women (Art. 15(3)) were incorporated. Interestingly, along with that judiciary has also time again proactively stood against the discriminatory practices against women especially in the midst of the religious unbelief of India. A firm testimony to which is ostensibly evident from the case of Sabarimala Temple.[2] However, in this theatre of life the irony as brought to the limelight by the then CJI Dipak Misra nurtured by our religiously incredible society is: that the society often imposes “a rule, however unjustified and proffer explanation or justification to substantiate the substratum of the said rule. Mankind, since time immemorial, has been searching for explanation or justification to substantiate a point of view that hurts humanity.”[3]
In the light of the irony of the society and religious incredibility, the prevalence of different religious practices in the country results in a golden triangle between: religious traditions, practitioners of the religious traditions and the inalienable human rights. The Golden triangle not only depicts the general connection between them but also throws light on the conflict which exists between them. And one such not so touched but vividly prevalent practice falling in the midst of this golden triangle is Kanyadan.
The ritual of Kanyadan is considered very auspicious in Hindu religion. It is a very pious and dutiful ritual which is said to bring fortune as well as relief from the sins for the bride’s parents. This practice of giving away the most precious gift to the groom essentially involves pouring of sacred water by the bride’s father in his daughter’s hand and thereafter placing of her hand in groom’s hand.[4]Kanyadan intrinsically means when the father hands over all his rights and duties towards his daughter to her prospective groom. As per the historical tradition, the groom is seen as a form of Lord Vishnu and presenting him gifts is deemed as the greatest honour for the parents of the bride.[5] Furthermore, pertinent is the fact that this tradition of giving dan of a girl also stems from the essential requirement of a guardian in the life of a girl as has been highlighted in the famous Manusmriti by Manu.[6] According to him, in the life of a girl, a male guardianship is necessary in both stages of her life that is unmarried and married.[7] Hence, it is believed that till the time she will remain unmarried her father would be the guardian and after that her husband would be the guardian. This manifestly is arbitrary to the very essence of the fundamental human rights which belong to the human beings because of the sole reason of them being humans. Moreover, it also gives rise to an inference that a girl cannot survive without a guardian. Furthermore, as a symbol of acceptance, the groom as a part and parcel of the tradition touches the right shoulder of the bride and thereby promises to take care of her and hold her responsibility. Interestingly, it is believed that this ritual not only increases the parent’s prestige but also purifies them from any sin. While the name itself, which literally translates as “giving away a girl”, is reflective of a shocking description, difficult to digest is so pervasively prevalent in India.
The most vital of all at this juncture firstly is that daan is mostly used in the context of donation and charity. So, a crucial question is how can a woman fit into this category? She is a human being and not a commodity which can be passed on from one to another. Moreover, most significantly the word Dan literally means to donate. So, an imperative question to ponder upon here is how can anyone donate one’s daughter to anyone? Is the daughter or in general women a commodity which can be donated or gifted to anyone? And why should she be gifted. Is such an objectification valid in the social fabric of the country persistently working for upholding the dignity of its citizens?
The whole concept is violating the dignity of women and is magnificently violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. In fact, it is absolutely not syncing with the Right to dignity of a person which is an intrinsic part of Art. 21 of the Constitution.[8] Thus in this light, it is germane to pinpoint that over the period of time Art. 21 which has evolved and achieved its real soul by taking human dignity in its canopy is getting vividly infringed every time a girl is donated or given in charity in the name of the society called tradition of kanyadan.
Marriage is meant to be a meeting of souls, two persons, two families and in marriage both the partners are equal. So, how can a father or mother just give away their daughter as alms to someone? When a boy and a girl both get married then why can’t we have the concept of Putradaan (give away the son). Why is it only Kanyadan?
Secondly, no individual irrespective of their level of influence in a female’s life has the authority to give her away. In the constitutional structure of the country another astonishing belief existing in the society even after more than 75 years of continuous endeavouring of establishing a socio-welfare state with egalitarianism is after the marriage ceremony of Kanyadan of their daughter, parents get the chance of a fixed place in heaven for themselves. How can parents think that they can just give away their child who was with them for almost 20 or more years, who was a part of them and become so insensitive towards their daughter.
Thirdly, this practice leads to an inference for many of the grooms and their parents that the girl’s parents are actually getting rid of their child and the groom’s family is obliging the girl’s family by accepting the Kanyadan. And somewhere down the line this objectification of woman seems to have a close nexus with the prevalence of so many social menaces associated with women in the society. Because when parents themselves will treat their own child as a commodity then how can they expect some strangers to respect their daughter?
In this context another crucial question which should be considered is whether kanyadan is an intrinsically essential practice required for a legally valid marriage to meet the requirements of S. 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[9] or not? And the answer to this question can be traced from the case of Ramlal Aggarwal v. Shantadevi[10] where in Andhra Pradesh High Court very clearly stated that it is an essential practice but not a mandatory ceremony and its non-performance will not invalidate the marriage. The court stated that: “Hindu Marriage Act merely provides Saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu Marriage and it does not provide that the ceremony of kanyadan is essential for solemnization of a Hindu Marriage.” And importantly the same was again reiterated in the case of Ashutosh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh[11]wherein the court had an occasion to assess the provision of Section 7 of HMA.[12] Therefore, it is crystal clear that this practice does not fall in the category of essential religious practice capable of the constitutional protection.
The vivid prevalence of this practice in our Indian socio fabric clearly reflects the pernicious war between the constitutional morality and social morality wherein the historic traditional customs are persistently defeating equality and dignity of females especially. The ubiquity of this customary ritual in every corner of India even when it is blatantly violating the vires of the Indian Constitution and the dignity of a woman is placing her in a class without any rationale. Hence, the need of the hour requires the balancing of the tussle between the traditions on one hand and constitutional morality on the other and to ensure that the marriage instead of encompassing a patriarchal transfer is partnership with equal share of partners. Therefore, inter alia firstly, the emphasis should be laid on bringing reforms through spreading awareness about egalitarianism in rituals and society among the masses. Secondly, endeavour should be made to by encourage the exchange of mutual vows or joint declaration (Sah-Sankalp) ceremony by both the bride and the groom. Thirdly, governmental authorities should undertake public campaigns encouraging “No Kanyadan Weddings” or “Say no to Kanyadan” and introduce incentives for having egalitarian ceremonies in marriages.
A Constitutional welfare state persistently working for an ardent foundation for inalienable rights necessarily has to confront many obstacles on its way, out of which the customary rituals constitute the most pivotal stone of obstacle and Kanyadan is one such stone of many obstacles in the establishment of that firm foundation. And its eradication is that one vital step which can work incredibly towards the protection of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of women.
[1] Author is an Advocate based at Delhi and can be contacted at 9599503262 and junejaanshika@gmail.com.
[2]Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala, AIR 2018 SC 243.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Kanyadan an Indian Wedding Ceremony, https://www.linandjirsa.com/kanyadan-indian-wedding-ceremony/ accessed on March 5, 2026.
[5]Ibid.
[6] Khyati Ravi, “Why Kanyadan? -An Unquestionable ritual” The Times of India, June 09, 2021.
[7]Ibid.
[8]Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
[9] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) s. 7.
[10] AIR 1999 AP 251.
[11] 2024: AHC-LKO:25688.
[12]Supra 9.