Harmonisation With Existing Regimes Necessary: Supreme Court Directs All States & UTs To Make Rules For Registration Of Sikh Marriages
The Supreme Court remarked that when the law recognises 'Anand Karaj' as a valid form of marriage yet leaves no machinery to register it, the promise is only half kept.
Supreme Court, Sikh Marriage
The Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories (UTs) to make rules for registration of Sikh/Anand Karaj marriages under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (AMA) as amended in 2012, within a period of four months.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by a person namely Amanjot Singh Chadha, seeking a limited mandamus directing the States and UTs to frame and notify rules under Section 6 of AMA to facilitate registration of marriages solemnised by the Sikh rite commonly known as Anand Karaj.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “In our considered opinion, harmonisation with existing registration regimes is both practicable and necessary. Where a general civil marriage registration framework is in place, it must receive applications for registration of marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj on the same footing as other marriages and, if the parties so request, it should record that the ceremony was by the Anand rite.”
The Bench added that such interim facilitation does not displace the specific rule-making contemplated by Section 6 of the Act and it prevents denial of certification while formal rules are finalised.
AOR Sanpreet Singh Ajmani represented the Petitioner while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Respondents.
Case Background
The relief sought in the Writ Petition was confined to operationalising the statutory mechanism contemplated by the Parliament. The limited prayer was that the rule-making duty be discharged within a reasonable time so that access to certification and the attendant civil consequences is secure and non-discriminatory across jurisdictions. The Anand Marriage Act was enacted to recognise the validity of marriages performed by the Sikh ceremony of Anand Karaj. By the Amendment of 2012, the Parliament inserted Section 6 of the Act casting a duty upon the respective State Governments to make rules to facilitate registration of such marriages, to maintain a Marriage Register, and to provide certified extracts, while clarifying that omission to register would not affect the validity of an Anand marriage.
According to the Petitioner, while a number of States and Union Territories have notified rules pursuant to Section 6 of the Act, several others have not yet done so, resulting in uneven access to a uniform statutory facility intended by the amendment. The Petitioner had earlier approached the Uttarakhand High Court, which directed the Chief Secretary, State to place the proposal before the Cabinet, and upon approval, to publish the rules in the Gazette and place them before the Legislative Assembly. Thereafter, the Petitioner addressed representations to various States and UTs seeking formulation/notification of rules under Section 6 of the Act. A response from Jammu and Kashmir UT indicated that action was under consideration. Being aggrieved by the continuing non-implementation of Section 6 of the Act in several jurisdictions, the Petitioner approached the Apex Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, remarked, “The fidelity of a constitutional promise is measured not only by the rights it proclaims, but by the institutions that make those rights usable. In a secular republic, the State must not turn a citizen’s faith into either a privilege or a handicap. When the law recognises Anand Karaj as a valid form of marriage yet leaves no machinery to register it, the promise is only half kept. What remains is to ensure that the route from rites to record is open, uniform and fair.”
The Court said that in jurisdictions governed by special constitutional or statutory arrangements that regulate the extension of Central enactments, the immediate duty is to secure reception and certification without discrimination under the prevailing framework, while the competent authority considers, in accordance with law, whether and how to extend the Act.
“This measured course preserves federal comity, avoids prescribing policy content, and gives practical effect to the clear legislative command. … this writ petition is disposed of with appropriate directions to the respective States and Union Territories that secure time-bound performance of the rule-making obligation under Section 6 of the Act and require interim facilitation under existing registration mechanisms so that the statutory promise of the provision is made effective”, it noted and ordered.
Court’s Directions
The Court, therefore, issued the following directions to the Respondent States and UTs, subject to the specific directions that follow for particular jurisdictions –
i. Every Respondent that has not yet notified rules under Section 6 of the Act shall do so within four months. The rules shall be published in the Official Gazette and laid before the State Legislature in terms of Section 6(4) of the Act.
ii. With immediate effect and until such rules are notified, each Respondent shall ensure that marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj are received for registration under the prevailing marriage registration framework without discrimination. Where the parties so request, the registering authority shall record in the certificate that the marriage was solemnised by the Anand Karaj rite.
iii. Respondents that have already notified rules under Section 6 of the Act shall continue to operate them. Within three months, they shall issue a clarificatory circular to all registering authorities and publish on the official portal the applicable forms, fees, documents required, and timelines, and shall ensure availability of certified extracts in terms of Section 6(2) of the Act. No authority shall insist on an additional or duplicative registration under any other law once registration under the Act is granted, in view of Section 6(5) of the Act.
iv. Every Respondent shall, within two months, designate a Secretary-level Nodal Officer to oversee compliance with the Order, to issue any consequential administrative directions, and to address grievances regarding receipt and certification of Anand Karaj marriages.
v. The Respondent-Union of India, shall act as the coordinating authority. Within two months, it shall circulate model rules compiled from jurisdictions that have already notified Section 6 rules to any State or Union Territory that seeks guidance. Within six months, it shall compile and present a consolidated status report before the Supreme Court indicating compliance by each respondent and place the same on the website of the Ministry of Law and Justice, in addition to furnishing a copy to the Registry.
vi. No application for registration of an Anand Karaj marriage or for a certified extract shall be refused on the sole ground that rules under Section 6 of the Act have not yet been notified. Any refusal shall be reasoned in writing and shall remain amenable to remedies in law.
Specific Directions & Conclusion
Moreover, the Court issued specific directions to the State of Goa as well as State of Sikkim. It directed State of Goa to ensure that all Civil Registration Offices receive and process, without discrimination, applications for registration of marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj under the existing civil registration framework and where the parties so request, the register and the certificate shall record that the marriage was solemnised by the Anand Karaj rites.
“As an interim measure, the State shall ensure that all registering authorities receive and process, without discrimination, applications for registration of marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj under the existing Rules to provide for registration and solemnization of a Form of Marriage in Sikkim (1963). Where the parties so request, the register and the certificate shall record that the marriage was solemnised by the Anand Karaj rite”, it directed the State of Sikkim.
The Court concluded and ordered that each Respondent shall place on record a brief compliance affidavit within the timelines indicated in paragraphs 12 to 14, enclosing the relevant notifications, circulars and formats, as the case may be.
“The Union of India shall file the consolidated status report contemplated by paragraph 12(v) within six months”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Writ Petition and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1127)
Appearance:
Petitioner: AOR Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates Amonjyot Singh Chadda, Amitoz Kaur, Amit Kumar, and Shivani Agraheri.
Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG K.M. Nataraj, AORs N. Visakamurthy, Abhishek Atrey, D. L. Chidananda, Sabarish Subramanian, Astha Sharma, Swati Ghildiyal, Manish Kumar, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, K. Enatoli Sema, Sameer Abhyankar, Disha Singh, Surbhi Kapoor, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Kunal Mimani, Advocates Rajat Nair, Ruchi Gour Narula, Annirudh Sharma, Arkaj Kumar, Anuj Udupa, Vikas Negi, Ambika Atrey, Navneet Gupta, Devyani Bhatt, Kumar Saurav, Yatin M. Jagtap, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B. Varma, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Yanmi Phazang, Krishna Rastogi, Aryan Srivastava, Eliza Bar, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Sarthak Mehrotra, Bhagwant Deshpande, Subhi Pastor, Parth Awasthi, Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Indira Bhakar, Prashant Alai, Abhinav Rana, and Afshaa Hakim.
