All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) has issued the following press release on February 24, 2026:

AIDWA condemns the proposal of the Gujarat government to make the consent of parents mandatory for a girl or a boy to enter into a marriage. The state government has proposed an amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, which would require couples to declare whether they have informed their parents of the marriage, and authorities too will have the right to alert parents during the registration process. This is a most blatant attempt to control the choice, sexuality, and autonomy of young people, especially girls. It denies that an adult can have any agency and control over their body, even in intimate matters. The proposal is, in fact, reflective of the rules made in the Uttarakhand UCC, which also mandate that the parents should be informed about a marriage. It is shameful that even some AAP and Congress members supported this proposal. A Deputy Minister of the government tried to defend the proposal by saying that it was meant to stop “love jihad”, and that young girls can get easily persuaded and “trapped” into these marriages. Though “love jihad” itself is a fiction created to stop interfaith marriages, the proposal of the Gujarat government is obviously intended to stop inter-caste marriages too. The proposal exemplifies the Manuvadi and Hindutva ideology of the BJP-led Gujarat government, which places even an adult woman in an unequal, subjugated position. It shows that the BJP is increasingly consolidating anti-women, sexist, and misogynist laws.

It is extremely sad and inhuman that in a country where crime, harassment, and killing of hundreds of young people in the name of “honour” is taking place on a daily basis, this kind of law should even be proposed. It is well known that in our society, a large number of parents and relatives oppose any relationship by choice, and such a law will only result in further stifling of these relationships. In most of these crimes, the girl’s family reacts violently if she gets involved with a lower caste man, or with a man of different religion. Even today, it has been reported that a girl’s brother killed her because she married a man of a different faith.

The proposal is also in brazen violation of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court. in the Puttaswamy case, clarified that the right to privacy included within it the right to choose with whom one should live and have a relationship with. One of the judges clarified that "Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life." This right to choice has been severely dented from 2014 onwards, where we are seeing more and more control over women and their sexuality. Other judgments like Lata Singh and the Hadiya case have also clarified that adults do not require their family’s consent to get married or even to convert. Lata Singh, in fact, laid down strict guidelines for the police to treat any obstruction to such a marriage as a violation of the law. This means that the state has no authority to intervene when adults decide whom to marry or not to marry. The Gujarat proposal is regressive and backward-looking and must not be made into law.

AIDWA therefore demands that the Gujarat government scrap the present proposal and treat young women and men with dignity.

AIDWA Slams Chhattisgarh High Court Judgment in Rape Case

The All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) has strongly condemned the Chhattisgarh High Court’s recent judgment in Vasudeo Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, calling it an “erroneous and anti-women interpretation” of rape law.

The case dates back to 2004, when a minor girl was abducted and raped by the accused. In an act of extreme cruelty, he tied her hands and legs, gagged her with cloth, and locked her in a room, where she was found by her mother nearly eight hours later.

The Sessions Court had convicted the accused of rape but imposed only the minimum sentence of seven years. Even this punishment was diluted, as the accused was released on bail during the pendency of his appeal and spent barely a year in prison. The High Court heard the appeal only after more than 20 years, a delay AIDWA described as a “sad commentary on the justice system.”

Despite the victim’s testimony of penetration and medical evidence of injury and pain, the High Court ruled that the offence did not amount to rape. It reasoned that since the hymen was intact and only partial penetration was possible, the act constituted merely an attempt to rape. The Court reduced the sentence to three years and six months.

Legal experts and women’s groups point out that this conclusion directly contradicts repeated Supreme Court rulings. In Babul Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) and Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana (2004), the apex court held that even the slightest penetration is sufficient to establish rape under Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC, regardless of hymen rupture or emission of semen.

AIDWA criticized the High Court’s reasoning as “deeply flawed and sexist,” arguing that it undermines decades of progress in strengthening rape law and reflects patriarchal biases within the judiciary. The organization warned that such judgments set a dangerous precedent, trivializing sexual violence and emboldening perpetrators.

Calling for immediate corrective action, AIDWA demanded that the State of Chhattisgarh appeal the judgment to overturn the High Court’s interpretation and restore justice in line with established law.