ABSTRACT 

Kanyadaan, "gifting the maiden," is a longstanding ritual in Hindu marriages that represents transferring the fatherly duties and involvement to the husband. Because it is culturally valued and important, it is constitutionally deemed an area of concern for perpetuating gender inequality and women being subordinate. This article discusses Kanyadaan to understand it in the context of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, including decisions from Joseph Shine v. Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. It is concluded that despite it not being a legally prescribed practice, it is proposed that because Kanyadaan supports patriarchal norms, it is recommended by law and society to reconsider it.

Keywords: Kanyadaan, Hindu Marriage, Gender Equality, Article 14, Constitutional Morality, Patriarchy.

INTRODUCTION 

Kanyadaan, derived from the Sanskrit 'kanya,' meaning maiden, and 'daaan,' meaning gift, involves a ritual during Hindu marriages wherein a father gives the daughter, most often, to the groom. While the parents conduct Kanyadaan, it is a deeply sentimental act of giving away a daughter to the groom. The parents view it as an act of piety and selflessness, fulfilling their religious obligations. The ritual is laden with cultural and emotional significance, but at the same time, it also gives rise to serious issues with what Kanyadaan implies with respect to gender roles for women.

Kanyadaan is not legally required. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that a Hindu marriage is valid when solemnized according to the custom and practice of either party. There is no suggestion of Kanyadaan being a legal necessity. The obligation to perform Kanyadaan in Hindu weddings may be overwhelming, but it also shows how we attribute value to the need to perform Kanyadaan in weddings.

This paper argues that Kanyadaan is not a legal requirement, and it encourages discrimination against gender, directly contradicting our Constitution's equality, dignity, and freedom.

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE    

The ritual is drawn from ancient scriptures such as Manusmriti and Dharmashastra, which determine that the rightful guardian of a daughter prior to being “given” in marriage is her father. The conceptualization of Kanyadaan is intended to cleanse the parents of all worldly sins and, in turn, provide a pathway to salvation for at least the father.

 It must be noted that the origin of such apportionment of actions relates to a time when women were considered more property than self-determining beings. By affording the father 

As a guardian, the rite of passage to metaphorically “gift” or auction his daughter would frame her as lacking agency and inferior to her male counterparts. From a feminist and constitutional standpoint, this eventually becomes perilous.

LEGAL STATUS OF KANYADAAN 

Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that a marriage is valid if it is solemnized in consonance with the socio-cultural customs of either party participating in it. Such legislation permits inclusion of locally and culturally based rituals, such as Kanyadaan, Saptapadi, and Sindoor Daan. There is no requirement in the legislation for any single ritual to be pronounced as definitive, and, as a result, there are doubts as to whether parties can simply omit particular aspects of the ceremony or radically alter the ceremonial elements. 

The Delhi High Court affirmed the validity of customary rituals in Hindu marriages, unless they contravene statutory law or public order. The decision reiterated the legal value of personal customs but did not explore their constitutional value, especially where they operate in contradiction to gender-based justice. 

The legal affirmation of Kanyadaan has failed to inspire faith that the Constitution is activated to test the legality of personally held customs or rituals, amid the courts' deafening silence and lack of legal scrutiny into Kanyadaan.

A CONSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE 

• Article 14: Right to Equality

Article 14 provides for equality before the law and equal protection of laws. A ritual that symbolically transforms a woman into a transferable object contradicts this very equality. Kanyadaan, by treating the bride as property to be "given," contradicts the concept of an equal person.

• Article 15(1): Prohibition of Discrimination

Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Since Kanyadaan is performed only on daughters and not on sons, its entire administration encourages gender division. Sons are referred to as heirs to the family, whereas daughters are "given" like objects. This distinction perpetuates social unevenness in terms of valuation.

• Article 21: Right to Life and Dignity

Article 21 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court on several occasions as encapsulating the right to dignity. Kanyadaan ignores the rights and agency of the bride and symbolically hands over her autonomy firstly to her husband's family in a ritual—acting to objectify the bride and simultaneously take away the equal partnership marriage is intended to imply.

In Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Supreme Court enacted the principle that conventional morality must yield to constitutional morality. Furthermore, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Court expressed that dignity and autonomy are niched within constitutional identity. Additionally, in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, by declaring instant triple talaq unconstitutional, the Court established that religious customs in violation of fundamental rights cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny. These decisions demonstrate invaluable resources to question cultural traditions such as Kanyadaan when they violate constitutional guarantees.

 FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES AND SOCIAL TRENDS 

From the perspective of feminist jurisprudence, Kanyadaan is a form of "symbolic violence," defined by Bourdieu as the embodiment of the imposition of cultural values that serve to reinforce subordination. Kanyadaan upholds the idea that women can only have identity because they are guarded by men.

More and more couples are either foregoing Kanyadaan altogether or flipping Kanyadaan on its head. Some couples are turning Kanyadaan into gestures of reciprocity—performing Putradaan (where they symbolically give away the groom)—or some are using no gendered ritual. ⁹ These changes reflect an increased awareness of the Kanyadaan's antiquated premise.

While the courts may be relatively unwilling to limit accepted cultural and religious practices, Shayara Bano demonstrates a foothold in objectives such as fundamental human rights and equal dignity under the law, which are valuable precedents for critiquing Kanyadaan and similar cultural practices.

 ADDRESSING RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS  

Freedom of Religion vs. Fundamental Rights

Article 25 protects the right to freedom of religion; however, freedom of religion can be subject to public order, morality, and health. More importantly, the right to freedom of religion does not include practices that interfere with constitutional rights.

In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, the Supreme Court held that "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" do not confer a "license to…be immune from criticism." The Supreme Court has also stated that personal laws and practices must have regard to the entire constitution.

Thus, while Kanyadaan may have significant religious meaning, it is not insulated from reform, particularly when it can conflict with constitutional values of equality and dignity.

CONCLUSION 

Kanyadaan continues not through legal requirement but through gendered customary practices as well as traditional forms of religion. As a ceremony, it objectifies a woman, but given its placement in the marriage process, women are treated as transferred property—passively agreeing to allow themselves to go from one man to another—whereas it should be thinking, as per the constitution, about women as human beings. It is uncomfortable with Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.

RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Public Education Campaigns: Legal professionals and civil society members should raise public awareness and education campaigns about the constitutional implications of such customs as Kanyadaan and the role of religious leaders.

• Gender-Neutral Rituals: Reformists should go further and develop alternatives to Kanyadaan altogether by advocating for joint rituals or mutual customs that signify equality.

• Judicial Engagement: Courts should engage more thoroughly with the constitutional dimensions of personal law rituals beyond just legality, if only for the purposes of discernible gender equity within customary law.

The Indian Constitution exists to further a polity where equality, dignity, and autonomy are not sacrificed at the altar of tradition. If that is on the forefront of our consciousness, the time is now to conceptualize Kanyadaan as a choice informed by constitutional morality rather than a sacred responsibility.

Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship. All views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and represent their independent analysis. ClearLaw.online does not endorse, verify, or assume responsibility for the author’s views or conclusions. While editorial standards are maintained, ClearLaw.online, the author, and the publisher disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from reliance on this content. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information herein. Use of this article is at the reader’s own risk.