Unconstitutionality of the ‘Love Jihad’ Ordinance

  • Dhyey Desai
  • Show Author Details
  • Dhyey Desai

    Student at SVKM's Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai, India

  • img Save PDF


The Bharatiya Janata Party Government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has implemented a number of anti-Muslim policies. The latest is a crackdown on what it calls "love jihad," the idea that Muslims are attempting to trick Hindu women and convert them to Islam by marriage. Several BJP politicians have indicated that this is part of an Islamic plot to increase India's Muslim population over the last year or so. One of India's most populous states has recently asserted the right to interfere in marriage disputes, especially between Hindu women and Muslim men. Other states including Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Karnataka are considering doing the same. The citizens of India are assured of four things in the preamble of the Indian constitution: First, justice, which includes social, economic, and political justice; Second, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship; Third, equality of status and opportunity; and Fourth, fraternity, which includes the dignity of the individual as well as the unity and integrity of the nation. However, when the concept of fraternity becomes frail and on the point of collapse, democracy's very existence is jeopardized. Here in this paper it is discussed how the term ‘Love Jihad’ is interpreted in the ordinance passed, and is used unconstitutionally to disintegrate the unity between people of different faith.


Research Paper


International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation, Volume 3, Issue 4, Page 656 - 660

DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLSI.11998

Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.


Copyright © IJLSI 2021