States Must Frame Rules for Sikh Marriage Registration Under Anand Marriage Act Within 4 Months: Supreme Court - 2025-09-04

Supreme Court Orders States to Frame Rules for Anand Karaj Registration Within Four Months

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has directed all States and Union Territories that have not yet framed rules under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, to do so within four months. The decision, delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, aims to ensure uniform and non-discriminatory registration of marriages solemnised under the Sikh rite of Anand Karaj.

The Court emphasized that a constitutional promise is incomplete if the state fails to provide the necessary machinery to make proclaimed rights usable. "In a secular republic, the State must not turn a citizen’s faith into either a privilege or a handicap," the bench observed.

Background of the Case

The public interest litigation was filed by Amanjot Singh Chadha, who sought a writ of mandamus to compel States and Union Territories to notify rules as mandated by Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act. This section, inserted through a 2012 amendment, obligates state governments to create a framework for registering Anand Karaj marriages.

The petitioner highlighted that despite the parliamentary mandate, several states had failed to frame the necessary rules, creating an inconsistent legal landscape. This inaction denied Sikh couples a simple, uniform process for obtaining marriage certificates, which are crucial for accessing various civil rights and benefits related to residence, inheritance, and succession.

Court's Reasoning and Key Observations

The Supreme Court held that the duty cast upon the State Governments by Section 6 of the Act is positive and imperative. The bench noted that the provision was designed to create a "self-sufficient pathway" for the Sikh community to register their marriages, obviating the need for duplicative registration under other laws.

Delving into the legislative intent, the Court stated:

"A failure to make rules therefore withholds the very evidentiary and administrative benefits that Parliament has conferred and frustrates the uniform facility the 2012 amendment was designed to secure."

The judgment underscored the practical importance of a marriage certificate, highlighting its role in safeguarding the interests of women and children. The Court pointed out that "uneven access to a statutory facility across States and Union Territories produces unequal outcomes for similarly situated citizens."

Directions Issued by the Court

To remedy the situation and provide immediate relief, the Supreme Court issued a comprehensive set of directions:

• Rule-Making Deadline: States and UTs that have not yet notified rules under Section 6 must do so within four months .
• Interim Measure: Until the rules are framed, all states must accept and register Anand Karaj marriages under their existing marriage registration frameworks without discrimination. The certificate must, if requested, specify that the marriage was solemnised by the Anand Karaj rite.
• Nodal Officer: Each state must appoint a Secretary-level Nodal Officer within two months to oversee compliance.
• Union's Role: The Union of India is tasked with acting as a coordinating authority, circulating model rules to states, and submitting a consolidated compliance report to the Court within six months.
• No Refusal of Registration: No application for registering an Anand Karaj marriage can be refused solely on the ground that specific rules have not been framed.
• Specific Directions for Goa and Sikkim: The Court issued tailored directions for Goa and Sikkim, taking into account their unique constitutional and statutory arrangements, to ensure the extension and implementation of the Act.

Implications of the Judgment

This landmark decision operationalizes a decade-old parliamentary amendment, ensuring that the legal recognition of Anand Karaj marriages translates into a tangible, accessible registration process across the country. By setting a firm deadline and providing for interim measures, the Supreme Court has closed a significant gap in the implementation of the law, reinforcing the principles of secularism and equal access to civil rights for all citizens, irrespective of their faith.