Assam’s bold push for gender justice through anti-polygamy reforms

Coming on the heels of the Assam Prohibition of Polygamy Act, 2025, the Chief Minister’s latest announcement reflects a broader shift in governance where legal compliance is increasingly linked with public employment and access to state welfare – Kaushik Nath 

The Assam government’s decision to propose the dismissal of government employees found practising polygamy marks another significant step in the state’s ongoing effort to reform personal laws in the interest of gender justice and women’s empowerment. Coming on the heels of the Assam Prohibition of Polygamy Act, 2025, the latest announcement reflects a broader shift in governance where legal compliance is increasingly linked with public employment and access to state welfare. While the move has generated political debate, it also raises larger constitutional, social and administrative questions about the relationship between personal laws, equality and the role of the state in promoting social reform.

The proposal, announced in the Budget for 2026–27, seeks to amend the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, making government employees found practising polygamy liable for dismissal from service. Additionally, men found guilty of practising polygamy would become ineligible for government welfare schemes. Individuals convicted under any criminal law would similarly be denied access to state welfare benefits.

This represents an important evolution in Assam’s reform agenda. Earlier, the state focused primarily on criminalising the act of polygamy. It is now extending accountability to the sphere of public employment and welfare, signalling that those who violate laws designed to protect women’s rights cannot simultaneously claim the privileges of public service or state assistance.

The philosophy behind this policy is clear. Government employment is not merely a source of income but a public trust. Civil servants are expected to uphold constitutional values, obey the law and set standards of responsible citizenship. If the state has declared polygamy a punishable offence, allowing public servants convicted of such offences to continue in government service would undermine the credibility of both the law and public administration.

The proposal also reflects an emerging governance model that increasingly links welfare to lawful conduct. Across India, governments have experimented with behavioural conditions attached to welfare benefits, whether relating to sanitation, education or environmental compliance. Assam’s decision extends this principle to criminal offences that affect women’s rights.

The legal foundation of the proposal lies in the Assam Prohibition of Polygamy Act, 2025, one of the country’s most comprehensive pieces of legislation specifically targeting polygamy. The Act prescribes imprisonment of up to seven years and fines for individuals entering into polygamous marriages. Those who conceal an existing marriage before contracting another face imprisonment extending up to ten years. Repeat offenders are liable for enhanced punishment.

The law goes beyond punishing the principal offender. Religious functionaries, village heads, Qazis, parents or guardians who knowingly facilitate or conceal prohibited marriages may also face criminal liability. Such provisions recognise that unlawful marriages often involve multiple actors whose participation enables violations to continue.

Importantly, the legislation remains prospective. Marriages validly contracted under previous personal or customary laws before the Act came into force remain legally protected. This safeguard reflects the constitutional principle against retrospective criminalisation while ensuring that future violations attract legal consequences.

The Act also provides for compensation mechanisms for women adversely affected by prohibited marriages, recognising that legal reform must be accompanied by institutional support for victims.

The amendment to the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, further strengthens this framework. These Rules, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, regulate disciplinary proceedings, penalties and appeals relating to government employees. Any amendment introducing dismissal for practising polygamy would therefore operate within an established statutory disciplinary framework rather than through arbitrary executive action.

This ensures adherence to principles of natural justice. Government employees facing disciplinary proceedings would continue to enjoy procedural safeguards, which include the right to an inquiry, the opportunity to present their defence, and access to appellate remedies.

From a constitutional perspective, Assam’s reforms draw strength from the Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 44 encourages the state to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code, while Article 15 permits special measures to advance women. Although personal laws continue to govern marriage across different communities, the Constitution also places upon the state a responsibility to eliminate discriminatory social practices.

Supporters say that polygamy often leads to unfair family structures that hurt women more than men in terms of their emotions, finances, and social lives. Multiple marriages may lead to fragmented inheritance, unequal financial support, abandonment and prolonged litigation. Criminalising such practices is, therefore, viewed as a legitimate effort to promote substantive gender equality.

The reforms also reflect changing judicial attitudes. Over recent decades, the Supreme Court has increasingly interpreted personal laws through the broader framework of constitutional morality, gender justice and fundamental rights. The landmark judgement invalidating instant triple talaq demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to subject personal law practices to constitutional scrutiny where they undermine women’s dignity and equality.

However, Assam’s legislation is also notable for what it excludes. The Act does not apply to areas governed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, including the Bodoland Territorial Region, Karbi Anglong, West Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao. Similarly, Scheduled Tribes notified under Article 342 remain governed by customary laws where multiple marriages continue to enjoy legal recognition. These exemptions reflect India’s constitutional commitment to protecting tribal customs and cultural autonomy. At the same time, they also illustrate the complex legal pluralism that continues to characterise Indian family law.

Across the country, marriage continues to be regulated through diverse legal systems. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, abolished polygamy among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs by making monogamy an essential condition for a valid marriage. The Special Marriage Act, 1954, similarly mandates monogamy for civil marriages irrespective of religion.

Christian and Parsi personal laws likewise prohibit polygamy.

Muslim Personal Law, however, continues to permit Muslim men to marry up to four wives subject to conditions of equal treatment. This distinction has long remained at the centre of debates concerning the Uniform Civil Code and legal reform.

Outside Assam, Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code similarly prohibits bigamy and polygamy across communities covered under the Code, making Assam only the second state to undertake significant legislative intervention in this area.

Supporters of Assam’s approach argue that the state has adopted a gradual and pragmatic model rather than waiting indefinitely for nationwide reform. States possess legislative competence over matters relating to public order, police and certain aspects of civil law. Within this constitutional framework, Assam has attempted to harmonise criminal law, service rules and welfare administration with the objective of promoting women’s rights.

Nevertheless, certain concerns deserve careful consideration.

Critics may question whether denial of welfare benefits could indirectly affect innocent family members, including wives and children who bear no responsibility for the offence. Welfare programmes are often intended to alleviate poverty rather than reward lawful conduct. Policymakers must therefore ensure that punitive measures do not unintentionally deprive vulnerable dependents of essential support.

Similarly, disciplinary proceedings against government employees must be implemented with rigorous procedural safeguards. Allegations of polygamy may involve complex questions of personal law, customary practices or disputed marital status. Investigations must therefore be conducted fairly, impartially and strictly in accordance with statutory procedures.

The exemptions granted to Sixth Schedule areas and Scheduled Tribes also present a continuing challenge. While constitutional protection of tribal customs remains important, policymakers may eventually need to engage in wider consultations regarding gender equality within customary legal systems as well. Sustainable reform is more likely to emerge through dialogue and community participation than through coercive legislation alone.

Equally important is recognising that criminal law, by itself, cannot eliminate discriminatory social practices. Women’s empowerment ultimately depends upon access to education, financial independence, healthcare, legal awareness and effective institutional support. Laws provide deterrence, but long-term social transformation requires broader investments in gender equality.

Public awareness campaigns, legal aid services, counselling centres and economic opportunities for women must therefore complement legislative reforms. Without such supportive measures, legal prohibitions risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative.

The Assam government’s latest proposal represents an important statement of intent. By linking public employment and welfare eligibility with compliance under anti-polygamy laws, the state seeks to reinforce the message that gender justice is not merely a private moral concern but a public constitutional value.

Whether these reforms ultimately succeed will depend upon careful implementation, judicial scrutiny and sustained public engagement. Yet they undoubtedly signal a significant shift in the governance philosophy of Assam.

In a society where personal laws have often evolved gradually through political consensus and judicial intervention, Assam has chosen legislative action. The challenge now is to ensure that this assertive approach remains firmly anchored in constitutional principles, procedural fairness and genuine concern for the welfare and dignity of women. If implemented with sensitivity and consistency, these reforms could become an important milestone in India’s continuing journey towards substantive gender justice.