Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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