Holding

States and Union Territories that have not fully complied with the Supreme Court's direction to make marriage registration compulsory for all religions must do so within three months and file affidavits of compliance.

Summary

The Supreme Court revisited its earlier order of 14 February 2006 directing that all marriages in India be compulsorily registered. After hearing amicus curiae and examining compliance reports, the Court found that several states (Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura) had complied, while others either complied only for Hindu marriages or had not filed affidavits. The Court noted that the Constitution (Entries 5 and 30 of List II) empowers the State to make marriage registration compulsory as a vital statistic. It held that the directions must apply to all religions and that states and Union Territories that have not fully complied must do so within three months and file affidavits of compliance. The judgment also reiterated the need for the Central Government to enact a comprehensive statute on marriage registration.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court's direction for compulsory registration of marriages applies to all religions under the Constitution's provisions on vital statistics.
Whether the states and Union Territories that have only registered Hindu marriages or have not filed compliance affidavits are in breach of the Court's earlier order.
What procedural steps must the states and Union Territories take to bring their laws into conformity with the Court's direction.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Section 25
Constitution of Indias. Entry 30 of List II, s. Entry 5 of List II
Foreign Marriage Act, 1969
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. Section 8, s. Section 8(2)
Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872
Portuguese Civil Code
Registration Act, 1908s. Section 6
Special Marriage Act, 1954

Subjects

compulsory registration of marriageconstitutional lawList IIvital statisticsHindu Marriage Actinter‑religious marriageSupreme Court directionsstate compliance

Judgment

I
I
r
SMT.SEEMA A
v.
ASHWANI KUMAR

OCTOBER 25, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
,A.

}. .
Constitution ofIndia, 1950; Entries 5 and 30 ofList 111, Seventh
Schedule:
Compulsory registration ofmarriage-Direction to States, Union
c I

Territories and Central Government to make necessary amendment
in existing Rules-Central Government also directed to enact a
comprehensive 'statute-Reporting ofcompliance by some States and
Union Territories-Held: States and Union Territories who have not
D
complied with the directions given by this Court are directed to comply
with the directions forthwith.

It was directed by this Court in its judgment dated 14.2.2006 in
the instant matter that all marriages shall be compulsorily registered
and in terms of the order dated 23.7.2006 of this Court, the matter E
is placed for compliance.
Amicus curiae has made reference to the status reports and
affidavits filed by various States and Union Territories, and has
brought this Court's notice that some of the States have made
F
registration of marriages by Hindus compulsory, but it has not been
done in respect of other religions.
On consideration of compliance repmis received, the Court

HELD: 1.1. From the compliance reports filed by the States and
G
Union Territories, it appears that States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Chattisgarh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya,
~
Mizoram, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura have complied
with the direction. So far as the State of West Bengal is concerned,
663 H
/l
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A it has been submitted by the counsel for the State that on 22.12.2006,
changes have been made in the West Bengal Special Marriages
Rules, 1969, registration of Muslim marriages & Divorces
Registration Rules and Hindu Marriage Act for the purpose of
making marriages compulsorily registrable and providing for
B consequences for not doing it; that Christian and Parsi marriages
are solemnized through compulsory registration according to the
applicable statutes. Therefore, no separate rules have been framed A
in this regard. So far as other States and Union Territories are •4

concerned, some of them have not filed any affidavit and in respect
c others, the directions have been complied with in respect of
of
Hindus. The directions given in terms of the order dated 24.2.2006
by this Court have not been fully complied with. It is, therefore,
directed that the States and Union Territories who have not acted
in line with the directions given by this Court on 14.2.2006 shall
D forthwith do it. [Para 10] [669-C, D, E, F]
1.2. The affidavits indicating compliance shall be filed before
'¥ ,,
the next date of hearing. [Para 12] [669-G] I
,.
~

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Civil) No.
E 291 of2005.
Petition under section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer
of the Matrimonial Suit No. 104 of2004 titled Ashwani Kumar Versus
Seema pending in the Court of Ms. Rekha Rani, Additional District Judge,
Delhi to the Court of the District Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
F
Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.), K.A. Dewan, Balraj Dewan, Dheeraj K. ..;}-
Sammi, Mukesh Verma, Manish Shanker, M.R. Shamshad, Prvesh
Thakur, Yash Pal Dhingra, Tara Chandra Shanna, Neelam, Sharma,
Rajeev Shanna, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, M. Ankul Raj, Anukul Raj,
Ajay Sharma, S.W.A. Qadri, G.V. Rao, Kamlendra Mishra, ... Kamini
G
Jaiswal, Suparna Srivastava, Rajesh Srivastava, Naveen Kumar Singh,
Mukul Sood, Shashwat Gupta, Aruneswhar Gupta, Sanjay R. Hegde, ,,,.,-./.
Amit Kr. Chawla, Avijit Roy, (for Corporate Law Group), Jayashree
Anand, K.K. Mahalik, Kuldeep Singh, Jana Kalyan Das, Avijeet
Bhujabal, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, (for NCI of Delhi) D.S.
H
/
SEEMAv. ASHWANIKUMAR[PASAYAT,J.] 665

Mahra, Sunita Shanna, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur (for Arputham, A
Aruna & Co.) Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera, U. Hazarika, Satya Mitra,
Sumita Hazarika, KH Nobin Singh, Tarun Jamwal, David Rao, P.V.
Dinesh, B.K. Sandeep, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, S. Prabhu
Ramasubramanian, B.S. Banthia, Naveen Sharma, Ranjan Mukherjee,
S.C. Ghosh, J.S. Attri, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh, T.V. George, Anil B
Shrivastav, Ritu Raj, Nandini Gore, K.R. Sasiprabhu, D. Bharathi Reddy,
Anil Katiyar, S.S. Shinde, Asha G. Nair for the appearing parties.
} .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Pursuant to the order dated C
23. 7.2006, the matter was placed for our consideration. By judgment
dated 14.2.2006 reported as Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, [2006] 2
sec 578, it was directed that all marriages shall be compulsorily
registered. In the said order, it was inter alia noticed as follows:
"It has been pointed out that compulsory registration of marriage D
would be a step in the right direction for the prevention of child .
marriage still prevalent in many parts of the country. In the
Constitution oflndia, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') List II (the
Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule provides in Entries 5 and
30 as follows: E
"5. Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills;
intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in
respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately
before the commencement of this Constitution subject to their F
personal law.
30. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths."

2. lt is to be noted that vital statistics including registration of deaths
and births is covered by Entry .30. The registration of marriage would come G
within the ambit of the expression 'vital statistics'.
3. From the compilation of relevant legislations in respect of
registration of marriages, it appears that there are four Statutes which
provide for compulsory registration of marriage. They are : (1) The
-H
\
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Bombay Registration of Marriages Act, 1953 (applicable to Maharashtra
and Gujarat), (2) The Karnataka Marriages (Registration and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976, (3) The Himachal Pradesh
Registration of Marriages Act, 1996, and (4) The Andhra Pradesh
Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002. In five States provisions
B appear to have been made for voluntary registration of Muslim marriages.
These are Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa and Meghalaya The "Assam
Moslem Marriages and Divorce Registration Act, 1935," the "Orissa
.. .(.
Muhammadan Marriages and Divorce Registration Act, 1949" and the
"Bengal Muhanunadan Marriages and Divorce Registration Act, 1876"
C are the relevant statutes. In Uttar Pradesh also it appears that the State
Government has announced a policy providing for compulsory registration
of marriages by the Panchayats and maintenance of its records relating
to births and deaths. Under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which applies
to Indian citizens irrespective of religion each marriage is registered by
D the Marriage Officer specially appointed for the purpose. The registration
of marriage is compulsory under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872.
Under the said Act, entries are made in the marriage register of the
concerned Church soon after the marriage ceremony along witl:i..the
signatures of birde and bridegroom, the officiating priest and the witnesses.
E The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 makes registration of
marriages compulsory. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(in short the 'Hindu Act') certain provisions exist for registration of
marriages. However, it is left to the discretion of the contracting parties
to either solemnize the marriage before the Sub-Registrar or register it
F after performing the marriage ceremony in conformity with the customary
beliefs. However, the Act makes it clear that the validity of the marriage .)-
in no way will be affected by omission to make the entry in the register.
In Goa, the Law of Marriages which is in force in the territories of Goa,
Daman and Diu w.e.f 26.11.1911 continues to be in force. Under Articles
G 45 to 47 of the Law of Marriages, registration of marriage is compulsory
and the proof of marriage is ordinarily by production of Certificate of
Marriage procured from the Register maintained by the Civil Register and
issued by the concerned Civil Registrar appointed for the purpose by the
Government. The procedural aspects about registration of marriages are
H contained in Articles 1075 to 1081 of the Portuguese (Civil) Code which
SEEMA v. ASHW ANI KUMAR [PASAYA T, J.] 667
'r
is the common Civil Code in the State. It is pointed out in the affidavit A
filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Goa that the Hindu Act is not
in force in the said State since it has not been extended to the State either
by the Goa, Daman and Diu Laws Regulations, 1962 or by the Goa,
Daman and Diu Laws No.2 Regulations, 1963 by which Central Acts
have been extended to the State after the liberation of the State. Procedure B
I
for marriage is also provided in Code of Civil Registration (Portuguese)
i which is in force in the State. The Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 also
-... provides for registration of marriages.
4. As noted above, the Hindu Act enables the State Government to
make rules with regard to the registration of marriages. Under Sub-section c
(2) of Section 8 if the State Government is of the opinion that such
registration should be compulsory it can so provide. In that event, the
person contravening any rule made in this regard shall be punishable with
fine.
p
5. In Various States different marriage Acts are in operation e.g. in
Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1980
empowers the Government to make rules to provide that the parties
(Hindus) shall have their particulars relating to marriages entered in such
a manner as may be prescribed for facilitating proof of such marriages. B
Admittedly, no rules have been fran1ed. As regards Muslims, Section 3
of the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Marriages Registration Act, 1981
provides that marriage contracted between Muslims after the
commencement of the Act shall be registered in the manner provided
herein within 30 days from the date of conclusion ofNikah ceremony.
-\... F
However, the Act has not been enforced. So far as Christians are
concerned, the Jammu and Kashmir Christian Marriage and Divorce Act,
1957 provides for registration of marriages in tern1s of Sections 26 and
37 for registration of marriages solemnized by Minister of Religion and
marriages solemnized by, or in the presence of a Marriage Registrar
G
respectively..
\::., 6. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 of the Hindu Act
the State ofU.P. has fran1ed U.P. Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973
which have been notified in 1973. In the affidavit filed by the State
Government it is stated that the marriages are being registered after H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A enactment of the Rules.
7. In Pondicherry, the Pondicherry Hindu Marriage (Registration)
Rules, 1969 have come into force w.e.f. 7th April, 1969. All Sub-
Registrars of Pondicherry have been appointed under Section 6 of the
B Indian Registration Act, 1908 (in short the 'Registration Act') as Marriage
Registrars for the purposes of registering marriages. In the State of
Haryana, the Haryana Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2001 under
Section 8 of the Hindu Act have been notified. In the State of West .'
Bengal, Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1958 have been notified.
C 8. The position prevailing in several States and Union Territories as
follows:
"Accordingly, we direct the States and the Central Government
to take the following steps:

D (i) The procedure for registration should be notified by respective
States within three months from today. This can be done by
amending the existing Rules, if any, or by framing new Rules.
However, objections from members of the public shall be invited
before bringing the said Rules into force. In this connection, due
E publicity shall be given by the States and the matter shall be kept
open for objections for a period of one month from the date of
advertisement inviting objections. On the expiry of the said period,
the States shall issue approp1iate notification bringing the Rules into
force.
F (ii) The officer appointed under the said Rules the States shall be
duly authorized to register the marriages; The age, marital st~ti.is'
(unmarried, divorcee) shall be clearly stated. The consequence'of
non registration of marriages or for filing false declaration s~l als~
be provided for in the said Rules. Needless to add that the object
G of the said rules shall be to carry out the directions of this court.
(iii) As and when the central Government enacts a comprehensive
statute, the same shall be placed before this com1 for scrutiny.
(iv) Learned cow1sel for various States and Union Territories shall
H enstu"e that the directions given herein are carried out immediately."
I
f
SEEMAv.ASHWANIKUMAR[PASAYAT,J.] 669
=r
9. Learned amicus curiae has made reference to the status reports A
and affidavits filed by various states and Union territories, and has brought
this Court's notice that some of the States have made registration of
marriages by Hindus to be registered compulsorily but it has not been
done in respect of other religions. By order dated 23.7.2007 with
reference to the earlier order dated 14.12.2006, it was directed that the B
marriages are to be made compulsorily registrable in respect of persons
who are citizens of India even if they belonged to various religions .
• •
Direction was given to file details of compliance.
10. From the details filed it appears that States of Andhra Pradesh,
Bihar, Chattisgarh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya, C
Mizorarn, ~iasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura have complied with the
direction. So far as the state of West Bengal is concerned, it has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the State that on 22.12.2006,
changes have been made to the West Bengal Special Marriages Rules,
1969, registration of Muslim marriages & Divorces Registration Rules and D
Hindu Maniage Act for the purpose of making marriages compulsorily
registrable and providing for consequences for not doing it. It has been
pointed out that Christian and Parsi marriages are solemnized through
compulsory registration according to the applicable statutes. Therefore no
separate rules have been framed in this regard. So far as other States E
and Union Territories are concerned, some of them have not filed any
affidavit and in respect of others, the directions have been compiled with
respect of Hindus. The directions given by the order dated 24.2.2006
have not been fully complied with. We, therefore, direct that the States
and Union Territories who have not acted in line with the directions given F
on 14.2.2006 shall forthwith do it and in no case later than three months
from today. It is ordered accordingly.
11. Place this matter after four months.
12. The affidavits indicating compliance shall be filed before the next G
date of hearing.
S.K.S. Listed for compliance.