Amanjot Singh Chadha (Petitioner) v. Union of India & Ors. (Respondents)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 911 OF 2022

(SANDEEP MEHTA and VIKRAM NATH, JJ)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the important issue of the effective implementation of Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, as amended in 2012, which provides for the registration of marriages solemnised by the Sikh ceremony of Anand Karaj. The Court started off by considering the fidelity of constitutional commitments, highlighting that rights enshrined in law have to be accompanied by operative institutions that render those rights realistic. In a republican secular state, it noted, the State has to ensure that a citizen’s belief does not turn into a privilege or a disability. Although the legality of Anand Karaj as a marriage is a settled principle, without a mechanism of registration, the statutory promise remains incomplete, thus depriving uniform access to certification and its civil implications.

The petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution prayed for a limited mandamus to States and Union Territories to make and publish rules under Section 6 of the Act so that marriages performed by Anand Karaj could be registered throughout India. The prayer was limited to implementing the legislative scheme already enacted by Parliament, without questioning the validity of the laws. The complaint lodged was that although certain States and Union Territories had notified rules, others had not, leading to unequal access to registration centers and discrimination against equally placed citizens. The petitioner underlined his previous attempts prior to the Uttarakhand High Court as well as subsequent representations to a number of States and Union Territories, which drew minimal responses, thereby justifying intervention by the Supreme Court.

Section 6 of the Act was reproduced in the judgment, which enunciates a comprehensive legislative scheme. It imposes a compulsorily binding obligation on State Governments to formulate rules for registration of Anand Karaj marriages, makes provision for maintenance of a public Marriage Register containing certified extracts, ensures evidentiary value of such records, and clarifies that parties who are once registered under this Act need not obtain duplicate registration under other laws. Though Section 6(3) ensures the sacramental validity of Anand Karaj marriages even if not registered, the Court made it clear that this guarantee of sacramental validity does not water down the duty of the States to devise a functional registration system. Section 6(5), by eliminating redundant registration, also emphasizes Parliament’s desire to have a stand-alone scheme. The Court stated that failure to frame rules deprives the legislative mandate of its purpose and denies the very evidentiary and administrative advantages Parliament aimed to grant.

The Court further emphasized that access to registration of marriage is necessarily related to equality as well as to proper civil administration. Registration makes it possible to establish marital status for crucial purposes like residence, inheritance, succession, maintenance, insurance, and enforcement of monogamy, and offers essential protection to women and children. Non-uniform access in States erodes civic equality within a secular structure. It was therefore necessary in the view of the Court that the statutory scheme is implemented both in letter and spirit. In the meantime, the Court instructed that pre-existing general civil marriage registration systems should accept applications for Anand Karaj marriages on an equal basis to other marriages, and, where required, note the marriage was solemnized by Anand Karaj rites. This prevents any citizen from being denied certification pending the formulation of rules.

Disposing of the writ petition with directions, the Court granted general guidelines to be followed by all the States and Union Territories. First, all respondents who have not yet issued notifications under Section 6 were ordered to do so within a period of four months, to publish them in the Gazette, and to lay them before the State Legislature. Secondly, immediately, until rules are formulated, all marriages performed by Anand Karaj should be accepted and registered under current statutory regimes nondisriminatively, and certificates should, as requested, indicate that the ceremony was by the Anand Karaj rite. Thirdly, already rule-framed States should keep running them, issue clarificatory circulars within three months, and make processes, forms, fees, documents, and timelines transparent. Significantly, no power shall require duplicate registration under other enactments if registration under the Act is made. Fourthly, every State and Union Territory shall appoint a Secretary-level Nodal Officer within two months to coordinate compliance and redress grievances. Fifthly, the Union of India was required to function as a coordinating authority: it has to disseminate model rules to States requesting advice, and within six months of the date of this order, submit a consolidated compliance status report on the Ministry of Law and Justice’s website as well as before the Court.

The Court also issued specific directions in the case of the States of Goa and Sikkim, for which there are special constitutional or statutory provisions. For Goa, the State was instructed to provide interim facilitation under its civil registration system and the Union of India was requested to bring a notification within four months extending the Anand Marriage Act to Goa in accordance with the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962. After this extension, Goa has to notify rules within four months and issue circulars for implementation. For Sikkim, the Court ordered immediate interim facilitation in terms of the prevailing 1963 Rules for marriage registration, with certificates mentioning Anand Karaj where asked for. Within three months, the State is required to issue clarificatory circulars to ensure transparency. The Union of India was ordered to submit before the competent authority a proposal for the extension of the Anand Marriage Act to Sikkim under Article 371F(n) of the Constitution. After extension, Sikkim also has to formulate rules within four months and enforce them through relevant circulars.

To ascertain compliance, the Court directed each State and Union Territory to submit compliance affidavits within the given periods, along with relevant notifications and circulars. The Union of India has to submit the consolidated status report within six months. The Court also made it clear that no registration application or certified extracts shall be rejected solely based on the fact that rules under Section 6 have not been yet notified; refusal must be justified in writing and be amenable to legal remedies. With these directions, the writ petition and pending applications were disposed off.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional principle that promises in statutes must be actualizable as usable rights by working institutions. By enforcing the obligation of States and Union Territories to enforce Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, the Court ensured that the right of the Sikh community to register marriages under their religious rite is honored equally throughout the nation.