Supreme Court orders all States, UTs to frame rules for registration of Sikh Anand Karaj marriages in 4 months

The Supreme Court recently directed all States and Union Territories (UTs) to notify rules for registering marriages solemnised through the Sikh religious ceremony of Anand Karaj within four months [Amanjot Singh Chadha vs. Union of India & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta added that until such rules are framed, such marriages can be registered under existing marriage registration laws.

Where requested, the authorities should also mention in the marriage certificate that the marriage was solemnised under the Sikh rite, the Court further directed.

Commenting on lack of any rules for such marriage registrations in various States and UTs, the Court said,

“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."

In States where such rules are already in place under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (as amended in 2012), for registering Anand marriages, the Court clarified that no authority can demand a duplicate registration for such marriages under other laws.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a Sikh petitioner seeking directions to operationalise Section 6 (Registration of Anand marriages) of the 1909 Act. He pointed out that while some States had notified rules, many others had not, creating uneven access for those marrying under Anand Karaj rites when it comes to the registration of their marriage.

Prior to approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioner had moved the Uttarakhand High Court, which directed the State government to frame rules. He also made representations to other States and Union Territories, but their responses indicated continued inaction.

The Court noted that Parliament had amended the Anand Marriage Act in 2012 to insert Section 6, which required States to frame rules for registration of Anand Karaj marriages, maintain a marriage register, and provide certified extracts.

Yet, more than a decade later, several States and UTs had not implemented this mandate, leaving Sikh couples without equal access to marriage certification.

It analysed Section 6 in detail, finding that it imposed a mandatory duty on States to create a workable registration system. It emphasised that the purpose of registration was not to validate the marriage - since Anand Karaj remained valid even without registration - but to secure the civil benefits that flow from marriage certification.

“A marriage certificate enables proof of status for residence, maintenance, inheritance, insurance, succession and the enforcement of monogamy, and it particularly safeguards the interests of women and children who depend on documentary proof to claim legal protections,” the Court explained.

It added that denying such registrations in some States, while others allowed it, amounted to unequal treatment of citizens.

“Uneven access to a statutory facility across States and Union Territories produces unequal outcomes for similarly situated citizens. In a secular framework that respects religious identity while ensuring civic equality, the law must provide a neutral and workable route by which marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj are recorded and certified on the same footing as other marriages,” the Court observed.

Specific directions were issued to Goa and Sikkim. In Goa, the Union government was asked to extend the Anand Marriage Act under the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, following which the UT must frame rules.

In Sikkim, interim registrations are to be allowed under 1963 marriage rules, with a future proposal to extend the Anand Marriage Act to Sikkim under Article 371F of the Constitution.

The Court also ordered the Union of India to act as a coordinating authority, circulate model rules to States, and publish a consolidated compliance report within six months.

Each State and Union Territory must designate a Secretary-level officer to oversee compliance and ensure that no application for Anand Karaj registration is refused for want of rules.

“We make it clear that 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," the September 4 ruling stated.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Amonjyot Singh Chadda, Amitoz Kaur, Amit Kumar, and Shivani Agraheri.

The respondent-Union and States were represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, along with advocates Rajat Nair, Ruchi Gour Narula, Annirudh Sharma, Arkaj Kumar, Anuj Udupa, N Visakamurthy, Abhishek Atrey, Vikas Negi, Ambika Atrey, Navneet Gupta, DL Chidananda, Sabarish Subramanian, Astha Sharma, Swati Ghildiyal, Devyani Bhatt, Manish Kumar, Kumar Saurav, Yatin M Jagtap, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B Varma, K Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Yanmi Phazang, Sameer Abhyankar, Krishna Rastogi, Aryan Srivastava, Disha Singh, Eliza Bar, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Surbhi Kapoor, Sarthak Mehrotra, Bhagwant Deshpande, Subhi Pastor, Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Indira Bhakar, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Kunal Mimani, Prashant Alai, Abhinav Rana, and Afshaa Hakim.

[Read Order]