SC: Marriages Can Be Registered Through Video Conferencing Under The Special Marriage Act

Case Background

• The Respondents- husband and wife, had solemnised their marriage according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, and had applied for marriage registration, before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Marriage Officer, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
• Since both the respondents were living abroad, the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown imposed thereafter, had made it impossible for them to appear before the Marriage Officer during the hearing for registration.
• They requested a video conferencing meet which was rejected by the Marriage Officer, under Sections 15, 16, 18 and 47 of the Act.
• When the matter was raised before a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the order of the District Magistrate was upheld.
• Aggrieved by the two orders, the Respondents had appealed to the Division Bench of the same High Court.
• The High Court Bench set aside both the impugned orders, and held registration of marriages under the Special Marriage Act made through video conferencing as valid.
• The State of Haryana filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India.

Appellants’ Submissions

• The main contentions were that the High Court had failed to consider and appreciate the conditions laid out in Sections 15 and 16 of the Special Marriage Act, that mandates physical presence of the parties before the issuance of a marriage certificate.
• It also argued that the High Court did not give any proper reasons as to why the State’s submissions and the judicial precedents, in this regard, are not applicable to the present case.

Respondents’ Submissions

• The Respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s judgement in State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), and argued that laws cannot be interpreted in such a manner that creates inconvenience for the parties.

Court Order

• The Supreme Court held the Division Bench’s observations, in this case, to be correct, and accordingly dismissed the appeal petition.
• The Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian stated that law must march along with technology since the Act was passed before any major technological evolution. In such circumstances, the letters of law cannot be interpreted rigidly, it observed.
• Further, it also opined that the registration department is there to facilitate the parties, and not to create obstruction or hurdles.

What are your views on the case?