The Supreme Court addressed a writ petition concerning the operationalisation of Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (as amended in 2012), seeking uniform rules for the registration of marriages solemnised by the Sikh rite, Anand Karaj. The Court directed all States and Union Territories to notify rules within a specified timeframe and mandated that, in the interim, such marriages be registered under existing civil registration frameworks without any discrimination. Importantly, the Court observed that the statutory promise of facilitating certification and civil consequences for Anand Karaj marriages must be made effective and accessible to all citizens.
Brief Facts:
The petition was filed to address uneven implementation of Section 6 across States and Union Territories, which casts a duty on them to make rules for registering Anand Karaj marriages and issuing certified extracts. While some jurisdictions had framed rules, many had not, causing unequal access to statutory benefits like proof of marriage for maintenance, inheritance, succession, and other civil rights. The petitioner sought directions to ensure time-bound compliance and interim facilitation of registration under existing frameworks until rules were notified.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the failure of several States and Union Territories to notify rules under Section 6 deprived Sikh couples of equal access to statutory registration and certification of Anand Karaj marriages. It was urged that this delay undermined civil and legal benefits, disproportionately affecting women and children who rely on documentary proof of marital status. The petitioner sought directions to secure compliance within a reasonable timeframe and requested that, in the interim, registration be facilitated under existing mechanisms without discrimination.
Observations of the Court:
The Court highlighted the imperative nature of Section 6, observing that, "The fidelity of a constitutional promise is measured not only by the rights it proclaims, but by the institutions that make those rights usable… the route from rites to record is open, uniform and fair."
It noted that the statutory provision imposes a positive duty on every State Government to create a workable registration machinery and that this obligation is not contingent on the size of the beneficiary group or the existence of parallel marriage laws. The Court emphasized that uneven access frustrates the uniform facility intended by Parliament and compromises civic equality.
Further, the Court explained that registration ensures protection of women’s and children’s interests, allows proof of marital status for civil benefits, and harmonises with existing registration regimes. The Court stressed that interim facilitation under prevailing frameworks is necessary to prevent denial of certification while formal rules are being finalised, without displacing the eventual rule-making obligations.
The decision of the Court:
The Court directed all States and Union Territories that have not notified rules under Section 6 to do so within four months and publish them in the Official Gazette. Interim registration of Anand Karaj marriages must be allowed under existing civil registration frameworks without discrimination, and certificates may indicate the ceremony as Anand Karaj upon request.
Nodal officers must be designated to oversee compliance, and the Union of India will coordinate, provide model rules, and submit a consolidated report within six months. Pending applications cannot be refused solely due to non-notification, and any refusal must be reasoned in writing. These directions ensure the 2012 amendment is effectively implemented, safeguarding civil rights and equality for Sikh couples.
Case Title: Amanjot Singh Chadha vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 911 of 2022
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani (AOR), Amonjyot Singh Chadda, Amitoz Kaur, Amit Kumar, Shivani Agraheri
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General), K.M. Nataraj (A.S.G.), Rajat Nair, Ruchi Gour Narula, Annirudh Sharma, Arkaj Kumar, Anuj Udupa, N. Visakamurthy, Abhishek Atrey, Vikas Negi, Ambika Atrey, Navneet Gupta, D. L. Chidananda, Sabarish Subramanian, Astha Sharma, Swati Ghildiyal, Devyani Bhatt, Manish Kumar, Kumar Saurav, Yatin M. Jagtap, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma, K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Yanmi Phazang, Sameer Abhyankar, Krishna Rastogi, Aryan Srivastava, Disha Singh, Eliza Bar, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Surbhi Kapoor, Sarthak Mehrotra, Bhagwant Deshpande, Subhi Pastor, Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Indira Bhakar, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Kunal Mimani, Prashant Alai, Abhinav Rana, and Afshaa Hakim.
