CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Registration of Anand Karaj Marriages Is a Statutory Duty: Supreme Court Issued Directions

18 September 2025 8:54 PM

By: Admin


When the Law Recognises Anand Karaj but Leaves No Machinery to Register, the Promise Is Only Half Kept: Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling mandating all States and Union Territories to operationalise the statutory framework for registration of Sikh marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj. The Court, speaking through Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, declared that fidelity to the Constitution requires not just recognition of rights in theory but also institutions that make those rights usable.

“A Secular Republic Must Not Turn Faith into Either a Privilege or a Handicap”

The Court began with a sharp observation: “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.” The judgment arose from a petition under Article 32 seeking a limited mandamus to compel States and Union Territories to notify rules under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (as amended in 2012). While Parliament had created a statutory mechanism for registration of Anand Karaj marriages, many States had failed to frame rules, leaving Sikh couples without uniform access to certification.

“Registration of Anand Karaj Marriages Is a Statutory Duty, Not a Discretion”

Tracing the legislative history, the Court noted that the 2012 amendment inserted Section 6, casting a “positive duty” on States to create a machinery for registration. Section 6(3) preserved the validity of an Anand Karaj marriage even without registration, but that safeguard “does not dilute the obligation to frame rules.” Section 6(5) clarified that once registered under the Act, no further registration under any other law was needed, underscoring Parliament’s intent for a self-sufficient regime. By failing to notify rules, several States had “withheld the very evidentiary and administrative benefits that Parliament has conferred.”

“Certificates Safeguard Women and Children—Uneven Access Produces Unequal Outcomes”

The Court highlighted that registration bears directly on civil rights: “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.” It condemned the uneven access across States and UTs as producing “unequal outcomes for similarly situated citizens,” contrary to civic equality.

“Interim Facilitation Until Rules Are Notified: No Application Shall Be Refused”

To harmonise practice, the Court held that where general civil marriage registration frameworks already exist, they must “receive applications for registration of marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj on the same footing as other marriages,” recording in the certificate that the marriage was by the Anand rite if requested. Importantly, it directed 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 have not yet been notified.”

The Court issued sweeping directions: every State and UT that had not framed rules must do so within four months; meanwhile, all authorities must accept and certify Anand Karaj marriages under existing frameworks. Each government was required to designate a Secretary-level nodal officer, and the Union of India was tasked with acting as the coordinating authority, circulating model rules and filing a consolidated compliance report within six months.

“Special Directions for Goa and Sikkim”

For Goa, the Court ordered the Union to extend the Anand Marriage Act under the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, and directed the State to notify rules within four months of such extension. For Sikkim, it required the Union to consider extension under Article 371F(n) of the Constitution and mandated interim facilitation under existing marriage registration rules until formal extension.

By enforcing the statutory duty under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, the Supreme Court has ensured that Sikh marriages by Anand Karaj receive equal, uniform, and non-discriminatory access to registration and certification across India. The ruling transforms a “half-kept promise” into a binding constitutional mandate, reinforcing that recognition without implementation is no recognition at all.

Date of Decision: September 4, 2025

Latest Legal News