Supreme Court Orders Uniform Registration of Sikh Marriages | States and UTs Directed to Frame Rules Under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act Within Four Months
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court, Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed all States and Union Territories to notify rules under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (as amended in 2012) within four months to enable registration of Sikh marriages solemnised through Anand Karaj. Pending such rule-making, the Court mandated that existing marriage registration frameworks must accept these marriages without discrimination and, if requested, note the Anand rite in certificates. It stated that decades of delay had subjected Sikh citizens to unequal treatment across jurisdictions and contravened the principle of equality, while also highlighting that registration is vital for securing civil rights such as proof of status, inheritance, and maintenance.
The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, Amanjot Singh Chadha, against the Union of India and others. The petitioner sought a limited mandamus directing all States and Union Territories to frame and notify rules under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, as amended in 2012. The prayer was confined to operationalising the statutory mechanism enacted by Parliament for the registration of marriages solemnised by the Sikh ceremony known as Anand Karaj.
The petitioner submitted that although the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 recognised Anand Karaj as a valid form of marriage, the 2012 amendment inserted Section 6, casting a duty on State Governments to make rules for registration, maintenance of a Marriage Register, and issuance of certified extracts. Section 6 clarified that omission to register would not affect the validity of the marriage. According to the petitioner, while some States and Union Territories had notified rules, many others had failed to do so, resulting in uneven access to the statutory facility across India.
Prior to approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioner had instituted Writ Petition (PIL) No. 98 of 2021 before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court, by its order dated 23 March 2021, directed the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand to place a proposal before the Cabinet and, after approval, publish the rules in the Gazette and lay them before the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner subsequently made representations dated 8 April 2022, 9 April 2022, and 28 August 2022 to various States and Union Territories, urging them to frame and notify rules. A reply dated 30 August 2022 from the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir indicated that action was under consideration.
Being dissatisfied with the continued non-implementation of Section 6, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in public interest, seeking time-bound directions to the respondents to discharge their statutory obligations. The petitioner also prayed that until rules were notified, marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj should be received for registration under existing statutory frameworks without discrimination.
The Court observed that “the fidelity of a constitutional promise is measured not only by the rights it proclaims, but by the institutions that make those rights usable.” It stated that in a secular republic the State must not convert faith into either privilege or handicap, and when a law recognises Anand Karaj as a valid form of marriage but leaves no machinery for registration, “the promise is only half kept.”
On examining Section 6, the Court recorded that the provision was “cast in the imperative and identifies the facilitative purpose of registration.” It stated that Section 6 imposed a positive duty on every State Government to create a workable registration mechanism for Anand Karaj marriages, independent of the size of the beneficiary group or the existence of parallel marriage laws.
The Court recorded that “Section 6(3) of the Act preserves the validity of an Anand Karaj marriage even if it is not registered, which protects the sacrament but does not dilute the obligation to frame rules.” It further noted that Section 6(5) clarified that once registration was obtained under the Act, no duplicative registration would be required, reflecting Parliament’s intent to create a self-sufficient statutory pathway.
The Court observed that the absence of rules “withholds the very evidentiary and administrative benefits that Parliament has conferred and frustrates the uniform facility the 2012 amendment was designed to secure.” It further recorded that the availability of registration bears directly on equal treatment and orderly civil administration.
The Bench stated that marriage registration provides proof of status for residence, maintenance, inheritance, insurance, succession, and enforcement of monogamy, safeguarding women and children dependent on documentary proof. It recorded that uneven access to statutory facilities created “unequal outcomes for similarly situated citizens.”
The Court observed that interim facilitation was necessary. It stated that where general civil marriage registration frameworks existed, they must receive Anand Karaj registrations on the same footing and, if requested, record that the marriage was performed through Anand rites. It clarified that this did not displace rule-making under Section 6 but prevented denial of certification in the interim.
The Court directed: “this writ petition is disposed of with appropriate directions to the respective States and Union Territories that secure time-bound performance of the rule-making obligation under Section 6 of the Act and require interim facilitation under existing registration mechanisms so that the statutory promise of the provision is made effective.”
“Every respondent that has not yet notified rules under Section 6 of the Act shall do so within four months from today. The rules shall be published in the Official Gazette and laid before the State Legislature in terms of Section 6(4) of the Act.” The Court further ordered that “with immediate effect and until such rules are notified, each respondent shall ensure that marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj are received for registration under the prevailing marriage-registration framework without discrimination. Where the parties so request, the registering authority shall record in the certificate that the marriage was solemnised by the Anand Karaj rite.”
“Respondents that have already notified rules under Section 6 of the Act shall continue to operate them. Within three months, they shall issue a clarificatory circular to all registering authorities and publish on the official portal the applicable forms, fees, documents required, and timelines, and shall ensure availability of certified extracts in terms of Section 6(2) of the Act. No authority shall insist on an additional or duplicative registration under any other law once registration under the Act is granted, in view of Section 6(5) of the Act.”
“Every respondent shall, within two months, designate a Secretary-level Nodal Officer to oversee compliance with this order, to issue any consequential administrative directions, and to address grievances regarding receipt and certification of Anand Karaj marriages.” The Union of India was directed to act as coordinating authority. It was ordered that “within two months, it shall circulate model rules compiled from jurisdictions that have already notified Section 6 rules to any State or Union Territory that seeks guidance. Within six months, it shall compile and present a consolidated status report before this Court indicating compliance by each respondent and place the same on the website of the Ministry of Law and Justice, in addition to furnishing a copy to the Registry.”
“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 of the Act have not yet been notified. Any refusal shall be reasoned in writing and shall remain amenable to remedies in law.”
With regard to Goa: “as an interim measure, the State shall ensure that all Civil Registration Offices receive and process, without discrimination, applications for registration of marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj under the existing civil registration framework. Where the parties so request, the register and the certificate shall record that the marriage was solemnised by the Anand Karaj rites. The Union of India shall, within four months, issue an appropriate notification under Section 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 extending the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 to the State of Goa. Upon such extension, the State of Goa shall frame and notify rules under Section 6 of the Act within four months of the Union’s notification, publish them in the Official Gazette, and issue a circular to all Civil Registrars for immediate implementation.”
As to Sikkim: “as an interim measure, the State shall ensure that all registering authorities receive and process, without discrimination, applications for registration of marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj under the existing Rules to provide for registration and solemnization of a Form of Marriage in Sikkim (1963). Where the parties so request, the register and the certificate shall record that the marriage was solemnised by the Anand Karaj rite. Within three months, the State shall issue a circular to all registering authorities clarifying the above, specifying the documents required and timelines for issuance of certificates, and ensuring availability of certified extracts in terms of the prevailing rules.”
"The Union of India within four months, shall consider and place before the competent authority a proposal for extension of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 to the State of Sikkim under Article 371F(n) of the Constitution of India, with such restrictions or modifications as may be warranted. Upon such extension, the State of Sikkim shall frame and notify rules under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 within four months of the notification, publish them in the Official Gazette, and issue a circular for immediate implementation.”
“Each respondent shall place on record a brief compliance affidavit within the timelines indicated in paragraphs 12 to 14, enclosing the relevant notifications, circulars and formats, as the case may be. The Union of India shall file the consolidated status report contemplated by paragraph 12(v) within six months.”
Case Title: Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1127
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 911 of 2022
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
