Supreme Court: In a significant decision, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., while considering this petition seeking directions for the States and Union Territories (Respondents) to frame and notify rules under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (as amended in 2012) to facilitate registration of marriages solemnised by the Sikh rite commonly known as Anand Karaj, laid down the following general directions for the States and Union Territories:
-
Every Respondent that has not yet notified rules under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act (the Act), shall do so within four months from date of the present order. The rules shall be published in the Official Gazette and laid before the State Legislature in terms of Section 6(4) of the Act.
-
Each respondent, with immediate effect (and until such rules are notified) 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.
-
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.
-
Every respondent shall, within two months, designate a Secretary-level Nodal Officer to oversee compliance with this order, to issue any consequential administrative directions, and to address grievances regarding receipt and certification of Anand Karaj marriages.
-
Union of 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. It shall compile and present a consolidated status report before the Court within six months, 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.
-
The Court clarified that 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.
The Court also laid down specific directions for States of Goa and Sikkim.
Background:
The Anand Marriage Act, 1909, 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, 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.
The petitioner submitted that while a number of States and Union Territories have notified rules pursuant to Section 6, several others have not yet done so, resulting in uneven access to a uniform statutory facility intended by the amendment.
Court’s Assessment:
The Court had to consider whether it should, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, secure the effective implementation of Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 by directing time-bound rulemaking and, until such rules are notified, ensuring that marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj are received for registration under the existing statutory arrangements without discrimination.
Delving into Section 6 of the Act, the Court noted that discloses a complete legislative scheme. “The provision is cast in the imperative and identifies the facilitative purpose of registration”. It requires the keeping of a public register with certified extracts, provides for laying of rules before the State Legislature, and removes the burden of duplicative registration once an entry is made under the Act. Read as a whole, it imposes a positive duty on every State Government to create a workable registration machinery for Anand Karaj marriages. That duty is not contingent on the size of the beneficiary group in any jurisdiction, nor can it be deferred on the footing that other marriage laws exist in parallel.
The Court observed that the availability of registration bears directly on equal treatment and on orderly civil administration. “A marriage certificate enables proof of status for residence, maintenance, inheritance, insurance, succession and the enforcement of monogamy, and it particularly safeguards the interests of women and children who depend on documentary proof to claim legal protections”. Uneven access to a statutory facility across States and Union Territories produces unequal outcomes for similarly situated citizens.
“In a secular framework that respects religious identity while ensuring civic equality, the law must provide a neutral and workable route by which marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj are recorded and certified on the same footing as other marriages”.
The Court thus opined that 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 Court explained that this interim facilitation does not displace the specific rulemaking contemplated by Section 6 of the Act. It prevents denial of certification while formal rules are finalised. 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.”
The Court stated that 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.
Specific Directions for State of Goa:
-
As an interim measure, the State shall 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. Where the parties so request, the register and the certificate shall record that the marriage was solemnised by the Anand Karaj rites.
-
The Union of India shall, within four months, issue an appropriate notification under Section 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 extending the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 to the State of Goa.
-
Upon such extension, the State of Goa shall frame and notify rules under Section 6 of the Act within four months of the Union’s notification, publish them in the Official Gazette, and issue a circular to all Civil Registrars for immediate implementation.
Specific Directions for State of Sikkim:
-
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.
-
Within three months, the State shall issue a circular to all registering authorities clarifying the above, specifying the documents required and timelines for issuance of certificates, and ensuring availability of certified extracts in terms of the prevailing rules.
-
The Union of India shall, within four months, consider and place before the competent authority a proposal for extension of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 to the State of Sikkim under Article 371F(n) of the Constitution, with such restrictions or modifications as may be warranted.
-
Upon such extension, the State of Sikkim shall frame and notify rules under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 within four months of the notification, publish them in the Official Gazette, and issue a circular for immediate implementation.
The Court further directed the Respondents to place compliance reports enclosing the relevant notifications, circulars and formats. The Union of India was directed to file the consolidated status report within six months.
[Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 911 OF 2022, 4-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR Mr. Amonjyot Singh Chadda, Adv. Ms. Amitoz Kaur, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shivani Agraheri, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (NP) Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. (NP) Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Gour Narula, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma-(ii), Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Dr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv. Mr. Navneet Gupta, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Yatin M.Jagtap, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Rana, Adv. Ms. Afshaa Hakim, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
