The Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories to frame and notify rules under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (“Act”) within four months to ensure uniform registration of marriages solemnised through the Sikh rite of Anand Karaj. The order came on a writ petition filed by Amanjot Singh Chadha under Article 32, highlighting that despite a 2012 amendment introducing Section 6 of the Act, several States had failed to put in place rules for registration. It was claimed that equal access to certification is being denied
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasised that while the Act already recognises Anand Karaj as valid, the absence of a registration framework frustrates the legislative intent of Parliament. The Court underlined that registration is vital not only for proof of marital status but also for rights relating to residence, inheritance, maintenance, succession, and insurance, especially protecting women and children.
Pending the framing of rules, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to immediately register Anand Karaj marriages under their prevailing frameworks without discrimination. States shall also, if requested, record that the ceremony was performed through the Sikh rite. The Bench made it clear that refusal on the ground of absence of Section 6 rules would not be permitted.
Specific directions were also issued for Goa and Sikkim, requiring interim facilitation under their existing systems and mandating the Union Government to extend the Anand Marriage Act formally to these States. The Union of India has been designated as the coordinating authority and must circulate model rules and file a consolidated compliance report within six months.
With these directions, the Court disposed of the petition, reinforcing that the constitutional promise of equality cannot remain “half-kept” by leaving Anand Karaj marriages without a uniform registration pathway.
Appearances
Petitioners- Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR Mr. Amonjyot Singh Chadda, Adv. Ms. Amitoz Kaur, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shivani Agraheri, Adv.
Respondents- 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. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR, Ms. Astha Sharma, 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.
