In a landmark order on September 18, 2025, the Supreme Court directed 17 States and 7 Union Territories (UTs) to frame and notify rules under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, for the registration of Sikh marriages solemnized through the Anand Karaj ceremony within four months, addressing decades of non-implementation that has resulted in unequal treatment of Sikh citizens and a violation of the equality principle under Article 14. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 911 of 2022 filed by Amanjot Singh Chadha, underscored the constitutional imperative for uniform recognition of religious practices, observing: “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.” The court highlighted the hardships faced by Sikh couples, particularly in securing rights related to inheritance, succession, maintenance, insurance, and spousal benefits—essential for protecting women and children—due to the lack of standardized registration mechanisms, which has created a discriminatory patchwork where a marriage’s legal proof depends on geography.
The petition exposed the patchy implementation of the 2012 amendment to the Anand Marriage Act, which inserted Section 6 to mandate state-specific rules for registration, yet many jurisdictions failed to act, leaving Sikh marriages unrecognized in official records despite their validity. Rejecting arguments that the duty is discretionary or tied to the Sikh population’s size, the bench affirmed Section 6 as a statutory obligation, clarifying that while non-registration does not invalidate an Anand Karaj marriage, a certificate is crucial for civic equality. Until rules are notified, the court mandated immediate registration under existing general laws like the Special Marriage Act, with certificates explicitly noting the Anand Karaj rite upon request, ensuring no denial of marital proof. For states like Goa and Sikkim with unique marriage laws, specific directions were issued to integrate Anand Karaj registrations without conflict.
The court issued time-bound directives to operationalize the Act: (i) Non-compliant respondents must notify rules within four months, publish them in the Official Gazette, and lay them before state legislatures per Section 6(4); (ii) Interim registration under prevailing frameworks without discrimination, recording the Anand Karaj rite if requested; (iii) Compliant states must issue clarificatory circulars within three months, publish forms, fees, documents, and timelines on official portals, and ensure certified extracts under Section 6(2), prohibiting duplicative registrations per Section 6(5); (iv) Designation of a Secretary-level Nodal Officer within two months to oversee compliance, issue directions, and handle grievances; (v) The Union of India as coordinating authority to circulate model rules within two months and submit a consolidated compliance report within six months, hosted on the Ministry of Law and Justice website; and (vi) No refusal of registration or extracts solely due to unnotified rules, with any denial requiring reasoned writing and legal remedies. This framework promotes a secular, neutral route for recording Anand Karaj marriages on par with others, ensuring civic equality and safeguarding vulnerable family members.
The petition arrayed the Union of India and 17 states (Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Gujarat, Bihar, Maharashtra, Telangana, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur) alongside 7 UTs (Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu, Pondicherry, Andaman & Nicobar Islands) as respondents, exposing the nationwide disparity. This order not only enforces the 1909 Act’s long-dormant provisions but also reinforces the judiciary’s role in bridging gaps between religious freedoms and administrative machinery, fostering true secularism.
Case Details: Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India & Ors. | WP (C) No. 911 of 2022
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 