Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Register Sikh Marriages, Make Rules Under Anand Marriage Act Within 4 Months

In an important development, the Supreme Court directed 17 States and 7 Union Territories (UTs) to frame rules under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 for the registration of Sikh marriages (Anand Karaj) within four months. The Court stressed that decades of non-implementation created unequal treatment of Sikh citizens across India and violated the principle of equality.

"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 observed.

Until state-specific rules are notified, the Court directed all States and UTs to immediately register Anand Karaj marriages under their existing general marriage laws (like the Special Marriage Act). The marriage certificate must explicitly mention the 'Anand Karaj' rite if the couple requests. This ensures no citizen is denied proof of marriage.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued a series of specific, time-bound directives to operationalize the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, which was amended in 2012 to include a provision for Sikh marriage registration.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Amanjot Singh Chadha, who highlighted the acute hardship faced by Sikh couples due to the non-uniform implementation of the law. While some states had framed the necessary rules, many had not, creating a discriminatory patchwork where a citizen's ability to prove their marriage depended on their postal code.

The Court emphasized that Section 6 of the Act, inserted in 2012, imposes a mandatory statutory duty on States to create a registration mechanism for Sikh marriages performed under Anand Karaj ceremony. It rejected arguments that the duty was discretionary or dependent on the size of the Sikh population.

Further, it clarified that while non-registration does not invalidate a marriage, a marriage certificate is critical to secure rights relating to inheritance, succession, maintenance, insurance, and spousal benefits especially safeguarding women and children.

“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.

Therefore, the Court passed the following directions for the implementation of the rules regarding the registration of Sikh Marriages:

i. 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.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. 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.

v. The Respondent no.1, Union of India, shall act as the coordinating authority. 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.

vi. Moreover, 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. Any refusal shall be reasoned in writing and shall remain amenable to remedies in law.

The petition had arrayed the Union of India, the States of Uttarkhand, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Gujarat, Bihar, Maharashtra, Telangana, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Arunahcal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur and Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Let & Ladakh, Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu, Pondicherry and Andaman & Nicobar as the respondents.

The Court also issued certain specific directions to the States of Goa and Sikkim considering their specific laws.

Cause Title: AMANJOT SINGH CHADHA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS | WP(c) 911/2022

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 920

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR Mr. Amonjyot Singh Chadda, Adv. Ms. Amitoz Kaur, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shivani Agraheri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :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. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, 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.