Audit Report Alone Is Not Proof of Loss: Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects ₹2.54 Crore Insurance Claim Filed by Co-operative Bank for Employee Fraud Divisional Commissioner Has No Jurisdiction to Cancel Sale Permission Once Conveyance Is Complete: Bombay High Court Rules in Landmark Land Transfer Case Once Land Is Vested Under LDP Act, There Is No Lapse, No Going Back: Calcutta High Court Refuses Fresh Acquisition Under 2013 Act Courts Cannot Conduct a Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage—Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning in SC/ST Act, IPC Case Involving Police Officer Liberty Cannot Override the Horrors of Lynching: Bombay High Court Denies Bail in Palghar Mob Killing Case Exorbitant Damages Without Proof Are Unsustainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes Down ₹3.84 Lakh Monthly Damage Order Against Industrial Occupant Specialization Cannot Be Used as a Tool for Harassment: Allahabad High Court Quashes Mid-Term Transfer of Law Officer for Violating Bank's Transfer Policy Delay in Passing Arbitral Award Not Sufficient to Invalidate It Unless Prejudice Is Proven: Bombay High Court Upholds ₹43 Crore Arbitral Award Against Director-Guarantor Builder Disputes Can't Be Dressed as Criminal Offences to Seek FIRs: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Seeking CBI Probe Against NBCC Mere Plea of Oral Partition Not Sufficient Without Corroborative Evidence: Karnataka High Court Plaintiff Cannot Claim 2/3 Share Without Proving Settlement or Joining All Co-Heirs: Madras High Court Voluntary Abandonment of Infant Child Constitutes Cruelty; Father Retains Custody: Karnataka High Court Mere Delay Is No Ground To Quash Disciplinary Proceedings When Serious Financial Irregularities Are Alleged: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Charge-Sheet For Fraudulent Medical Claims Employer’s Insurance Cannot Offset Motor Accident Compensation: Delhi High Court Upholds Just Claims of Deceased’s Family Dying Declaration Must Inspire Confidence—Absence of Dowry Allegation Weakens Prosecution Narrative: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case Proposed Accused Cannot Challenge FIR Direction: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision Against Magistrate’s Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC Delay in Impleading Legal Heirs No Ground to Dismiss Entire Revision: Supreme Court Restores Civil Revision, Condemns Overtechnical Approach Generalised Allegations Without Specifics Against In-Laws Are Not Enough To Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Case Conviction for Rape on Promise to Marry Quashed as Couple Marries: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Do Complete Justice Recruitment Process Initiated Under Valid Policy Cannot Be Set Aside Merely Due to Later Change in Committee Composition: Calcutta High Court Conviction for Theft of Public Electricity Infrastructure Upheld; Hostile Witnesses Won’t Dismantle Case Where Recovery Is Proven: Karnataka High Court Forest Conviction Can’t Be Undone Merely for Want of Gazette Notification: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction Based on Forest Officer’s Certificate Sale Deed Void Ab Initio If Vendor Has No Title: Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms That No Better Title Can Be Transferred Than What Vendor Possesses Section 302 IPC | Circumstantial Evidence Must Exclude Every Hypothesis Of Innocence; ‘Fouler Crime, Higher Proof’: Bombay High Court Plaintiff Must Prove Execution of Sale Agreement Under Section 67, Not Just Mark It as Exhibit: Calcutta High Court Section 6 POCSO Act | DNA Evidence & Statutory Presumption Prevail Over Hostile Witnesses and Procedural Lapses: Karnataka High Court Disability Cannot Be Viewed in Isolation from Vocation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation by Assessing Functional Disability at 50% Section 57(A)(6) Bihar State Universities Act | State Cannot Withhold Salaries of Regularized Teachers on Artificial Grounds of Grant Categories: Patna High Court Evidence Recorded in Section 125 CrPC Proceedings Cannot Be Mechanically Relied Upon in Divorce Suits: Karnataka High Court Injured Witness Picked Up Weapons of Assault and Handed Them Over Next Day — Recovery Unnatural and Unbelievable: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal PMLA | Money Laundering Case Cannot Survive After Acceptance of Closure Report in Predicate Offence: Calcutta 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