SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1708

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Amanjot Singh Chadha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the 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 the 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.

ORDER

1. 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.

2. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks a limited mandamus directing the States and Union Territories 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. The relief is confined to operationalising the statutory mechanism contemplated by the Parliament. The limited prayer is 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.

3. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:

    3.1. The Ana

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top