Not possible to verify credibility of persons in absence of 30-day notice under Special Marriage Act: Centre tells Delhi High Court

The Central government has opposed a petition filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the 30-day public notice period to invite objections to solemnization of marriages under the Special Marriage Act (Nida Rehman v. Union of India)..In its reply to the petition, the Centre has stated that Sections 6 (Marriage Notice Book and publication) and 7 (objection to marriage) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 are not ultra vires the Constitution of India and do not raise seminal issues of violation of fundamental rights..The affidavit filed through the Union Ministry of Law & Justice states that Special Marriage Act provides "adequate safeguards" with respect to the interest of the parties involved..Without the mandatory provision of 30-day notice, it might not be possible to verify the credibility of the persons involved, it is explained. ."It may not be possible to verify the credibility of persons if at least thirty days period is not given as mentioned in section 7 of the Act. Further, Sections 8 to 14 of the said Act laid down the procedure on receipt of objections and hence, the procedure laid down in this Act for registration of marriage is fair and reasonable. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not tenable. The conditions relating to solemnisation of Special Marriage mentioned under Section 4 of the Act is in consonance with the intention behind the Act," the affidavit reads..With regard to the concerns of privacy of the parties raised in the petition, the Centre has said, "Though right of privacy is now part of fundamental right but it is not absolute right...as the Constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors..".[BREAKING] Mandatory publication of notice inviting objections before marriage under Special Marriage Act violates privacy: Allahabad High Court.As per the petitioners, the period of 30-day notice is unnecessary, unwarranted, discriminatory and impinges upon the life and liberty of persons, as well as the right to privacy..The petitioners have stated that the "objections" to marriage under the Special Marriage Act are mentioned under Section 4 of the Act and the same do not require any public notice as they can be ascertained through government certificates and undertakings given by the parties..Last year, the Supreme Court had issued notice in a similar plea challenging provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 that allow personal records of married couples to be made available in the public domain.