MAINS Current Affairs Legality of Polygamy in India & India’s Democracy Needs Different Electoral Rhythms

GOVERNANCE

1. Legality of Polygamy in India

Context: The Supreme Court is examining a petition challenging the constitutional validity of polygamy under Muslim Personal Law.

Polygamy

• Polygamy refers to a marital arrangement in which a person has more than one spouse at the same time.
• Types:
  • Polygyny: One man having multiple wives.
  • Polyandry: One woman having multiple husbands.
  • Bigamy: Entering into another marriage while the first legally valid marriage is still subsisting.
• In India, monogamy is generally mandatory under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
• However, polygamy is permitted under Muslim Personal Law, subject to its applicable personal-law framework.
• According to NFHS-5 (2019–21), polygamous marriages exist across different communities, with relatively higher prevalence in some Northeastern and tribal-population areas.
  • The reported prevalence was around 1% among Christians and 1.9% among Muslims.
  • Among Hindu men, around 3% were reported to have more than one wife.

Historical and Cultural Reasons for Polygamy

• Economic Factors: In traditional rural and agricultural societies, larger households could provide additional labour for farming and domestic activities.
• Patriarchal Traditions: The emphasis on male heirs and continuation of family lineage historically encouraged some men to remarry.
• Religious and Customary Practices: Personal laws and customary traditions of certain communities have permitted polygynous relationships.
• Social Protection: In some traditional societies, subsequent marriages were viewed as providing economic and social security to widows or vulnerable women.

Arguments Against Polygamy

• Gender Inequality & Exploitation: Critics argue that polygyny can reinforce patriarchal structures by permitting men to have multiple wives while women generally cannot have multiple husbands.
• Mental and Emotional Distress: Co-wives may experience emotional insecurity, marginalisation, family conflict and unequal treatment.
• Economic Strain: Maintaining multiple households may divide family resources and affect children’s nutrition, education and welfare.
• Constitutional Concerns: Critics contend that polygamy may conflict with Article 14 and the guarantees of equality, dignity and personal liberty associated with Article 21.

Rules and Regulations

• Marriage, divorce, inheritance and related matters are governed by a combination of statutory law and personal laws in India.
• For most communities, monogamy is the legally recognised form of marriage.
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs and prohibits bigamy.
  • A second marriage during the lifetime of a living spouse is generally void.
• Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: Prohibits bigamy among Parsis.
• Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872: Restricts solemnisation/certification of a Christian marriage where either party already has a living spouse.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Penalises marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse where the subsequent marriage is legally void because the first marriage is still subsisting.
  • Exception: Muslim Personal Law permits Muslim men to have up to four wives, subject to the applicable personal-law framework.
  • Consequently, the general criminal prohibition on bigamy does not operate in the same manner where the marriage is valid under Muslim Personal Law.

State-wise Regulations

• Uttarakhand: Its Uniform Civil Code, 2024 prohibits bigamy for residents covered by the Code.
• Assam: The Assam Prohibition of Polygamy Bill, 2025 proposes stringent penalties, including imprisonment for polygamy and enhanced punishment where a previous marriage is concealed.
• Tribal Exemptions: Assam and Uttarakhand provide exemptions for certain Scheduled Tribes and protected tribal areas in recognition of constitutionally protected customary practices.
• Goa: Goa follows a common civil-law framework rooted in the Portuguese Civil Code.
  • Historically, the Goa Civil Code contained a limited provision permitting a Hindu man to marry again in certain circumstances, including where the wife could not have a child or a male child.
  • This provision is regarded as largely obsolete and is reported to have not been used since 1910.

Supreme Court on Polygamy

• Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995): The Supreme Court held that a Hindu man cannot convert to Islam merely to contract another marriage while his first Hindu marriage remains valid.
  • Such a subsequent marriage is void.
• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000): The Court reaffirmed that conversion undertaken merely to facilitate a second marriage does not dissolve the existing marriage.
  • A fraudulent or sham conversion cannot be used to circumvent marriage laws.
• 2015 Supreme Court Position: The Court observed that polygamy is not an essential religious practice of Islam and therefore does not receive automatic protection under Article 25.
  • Religious freedom protects genuine religious belief and practice, but is subject to public order, morality and health.

Constitutional Dimensions

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.
• Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on specified grounds and permits affirmative measures for women and children.
• Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, including dimensions of dignity and individual autonomy.
• Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to constitutional limitations.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Equality vs Personal Law: Whether permitting polygamy under a personal-law framework is compatible with constitutional equality.
• Women’s Dignity and Autonomy: Whether polygamous marriages can adversely affect the dignity, autonomy and equal status of women.
• Essential Religious Practice: Whether polygamy constitutes an essential religious practice protected under Article 25.
• Uniformity vs Religious Freedom: The case raises the broader question of how personal laws should be balanced with fundamental rights.
• Legislative vs Judicial Role: Any major change to personal-law provisions also raises questions regarding the appropriate role of Parliament and the judiciary.

Way Forward

• Balance Fundamental Rights and Religious Freedom: Reform should protect constitutional values while respecting legitimate religious freedoms.
• Protect Women’s Rights: Greater emphasis should be placed on consent, dignity, economic security and equal status of women.
• Evidence-Based Reform: Any legal intervention should consider social, cultural and empirical evidence rather than relying solely on assumptions.
• Strengthen Legal Awareness: Women should be made aware of their rights and available legal remedies under personal and secular laws.
• Promote Gender-Just Personal Laws: Reform of personal laws should progressively align with the constitutional principles of equality, dignity and non-discrimination.

Conclusion

• The debate over polygamy goes beyond the legality of multiple marriages and involves the broader constitutional balance between religious freedom, gender equality, personal autonomy and individual dignity.
• A sustainable legal approach should seek to protect fundamental rights and women’s dignity while maintaining constitutional respect for legitimate religious and cultural freedoms.

POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

2. India’s Democracy Needs Different Electoral Rhythms

Context

• The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 proposes simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.
• The proposal has renewed debate over federalism, democratic accountability, electoral expenditure and the flexibility of India’s parliamentary system.

About One Nation, One Election (ONOE)

• One Nation, One Election (ONOE) seeks to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, allowing voters to elect both levels of government within a common electoral cycle.
• It involves more than merely coordinating polling dates, as it would require changes concerning the tenure, dissolution and continuation of legislatures.
• India previously conducted simultaneous elections from 1951–52 to 1967.
  • The cycle was disrupted following premature dissolutions of the Lok Sabha and several State Assemblies.

Background

• The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, introduced in December 2024, proposes:
  • Insertion of Article 82A.
  • Amendments to Articles 83, 172 and 327.
• The Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
• The parliamentary system requires governments to retain the confidence of their respective legislatures.
  • Article 75(3): The Union Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
  • Article 164(2): The State Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the State Legislative Assembly.
• Therefore, governments can fall before completing their normal five-year term if they lose legislative confidence.

Key Committees & Their Recommendations

• Law Commission – 170th Report (1999):
  • Supported restoring simultaneous elections while recognising the need for constitutional and institutional safeguards.
• Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee – 79th Report (2015):
  • Examined the feasibility of simultaneous elections and favoured a phased approach.
• High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections – Ram Nath Kovind Committee (2024):
  • Recommended simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.
  • Suggested holding local-body elections within 100 days
  • Also recommended a common electoral roll.
• Election Commission of India:
  • Has supported the concept in principle, subject to adequate constitutional, logistical and security arrangements.

Arguments in Favour of ONOE

• Lower Electoral Expenditure:
  • Frequent elections require repeated expenditure on election administration, security arrangements and political campaigning.
  • Synchronisation could reduce the frequency of such expenditures.
• Policy Continuity:
  • Repeated elections require implementation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which supporters argue can temporarily constrain new policy announcements and government decisions.
• Administrative Efficiency:
  • Simultaneous elections could reduce repeated deployment of teachers, government officials, police and security personnel for election duties.
• Longer Governance Horizon:
  • Governments could devote greater attention to long-term programmes instead of repeatedly shifting into campaign mode.

Arguments Against ONOE

• Tension with Parliamentary Accountability:
  • Parliamentary governments depend on legislative confidence and can therefore fall before completing five years.
  • A rigid electoral calendar may conflict with this flexibility.
  • Early collapse of a government could create difficult choices between conducting a short-term election and using constitutional mechanisms such as President’s Rule.
• Threat to Federalism:
  • India’s federal system reflects diverse regional identities and State-specific political priorities.
  • Simultaneous elections may increase the influence of national issues and national parties over State-level concerns.
  • This could reduce the political space available to regional parties.
• Unequal Electoral Mandates:
  • A government formed after a mid-term collapse may serve only the remaining period of the original electoral cycle.
  • This raises questions regarding the democratic legitimacy and duration of such a mandate.
• Risk of Premature Dissolution:
  • Early dissolution of the Lok Sabha could disturb the electoral cycle of otherwise stable State Assemblies.
  • Similarly, premature dissolution of an Assembly could disrupt the national electoral cycle.
  • Thus, synchronisation may impose a rigid calendar on a parliamentary system that is constitutionally designed to remain flexible.
• Electoral Expenditure Argument Needs Qualification:
  • Government expenditure is only one component of the overall cost of elections.
  • Political-party campaigning and private electoral expenditure constitute a significant share.
  • Therefore, the actual fiscal gains from ONOE need to be weighed against the constitutional and logistical costs of restructuring the electoral cycle.

Key Constitutional Concerns

• Federalism: State elections provide citizens an independent opportunity to evaluate State governments on State-specific issues.
• Representative Government: Electoral arrangements must preserve the ability of voters to choose governments at different levels according to their respective priorities.
• Parliamentary Accountability: Governments must remain answerable to legislatures and cannot simply be guaranteed a fixed tenure.
• Electoral Autonomy: Synchronisation should not weaken the constitutional role of State legislatures or regional political representation.

Way Forward: Strengthening Measures

• ONOE should not be viewed merely as an administrative cost-cutting exercise. Any reform should preserve federalism, representative government and legislative accountability.
• A pragmatic approach could include:
  • Phased synchronisation rather than an immediate nationwide transition.
  • Clear constitutional provisions dealing with hung Houses, no-confidence motions and premature dissolution.
  • Mechanisms to address mid-term elections without creating permanently truncated democratic mandates.
  • Strengthening the Election Commission’s logistical, administrative and financial capacity.
  • Parallel reforms in political funding, internal party democracy and implementation of the Model Code of Conduct.
  • Wider consultation with State governments, political parties, constitutional experts and civil society.

Conclusion

• The central issue is not merely whether India has the administrative capacity to conduct simultaneous elections, but whether synchronisation can occur without subordinating State-level democratic choices to a common national electoral cycle.
• Electoral efficiency and reduced administrative costs are legitimate objectives, but in a parliamentary federal democracy, accountability and federal autonomy must remain central.
• Therefore, ONOE should be pursued only if it strengthens electoral efficiency while preserving the independent voice of voters at both Union and State levels.

Download Pdf | Study Material | Downloads | Daily Quiz  | FREE Youtube Videos