Law has to keep pace with march of technology: Madras High Court allows couple to marry via video conference

The Madras High Court recently allowed a couple to solemnize their marriage through video conference, while noting that the right to marry is a fundamental right [Vasmi Sudarshini v. Sub Registrar]..Justice GR Swaminathan held that Section 12 (2) of the Special Marriage Act states that a marriage may be solemnized in any form which the parties may choose to adopt."In this case, the parties have chosen the online mode. Since law has to keep pace with the march of technology, the choice of the parties herein very much passes legal muster," the Court said.."If a golden statue of Sita can be a substitute for her physical presence, I have no hesitation to hold that virtual presence through online would meet the requirements of law under Section 12 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954," Justice Swaminathan observed in his order, after citing an excerpt from a speech delivered by Swami Vivekananda at the Shakespeare Club in California back in January 1900..The petitioner, a resident of Kanyakumari, wanted to marry a man residing in the United States of America through video conference and register the same under Special Marriage Act, 1954.She also prayed for a direction to the authorities to issue them a marriage certificate after considering her representation to that effect.The man had flown down to India in May this year, when the couple submitted a joint application in person, after which a notice of marriage was published. Objections were received to the marriage, which were deemed to be unreasonable by the marriage officer. After the mandatory 30-day period under the Act expired in June, the sub-registrar did not facilitate the solemnization of the marriage in the presence of the man, who could not stay in India any longer on account of Visa restrictions. This prompted the bride-to-be to approach the High Court seeking that they should be allowed to solemnize their marriage under Section 12 of the Act, even though she resided in India and the man was in the USA..After noting various precedents of marriage by proxy, the Court said,"In this case, the parties do not propose to conduct proxy marriage. The bridegroom will be very much present. The only distinguishing feature will be his presence being virtual and not physical. Section 12 of the Act does not exclude virtual presence...If the respondent had taken steps right then, the present situation would not have arisen at all. Just as an act of the court should not harm any party, the default committed by the authority ought not to result in prejudicial consequences.".The Court then referred to an order passed by Justice PB Suresh Kumar of the Kerala High Court which called for a pragmatic interpretation of the Act, given the needs of society. Justice Kumar had in that order noted that there were a large number of cases in which parties could not solemnize their marriage owing to the fact that one of them had to leave the country.He thus referred the matter to a larger bench, which held that in view of technological advancements, marriages under the Special Marriage Ac t1954 could be registered though video conference.In the present case, while noting that there was no Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court to the contrary, Justice Swaminathan held,"Right to marry is a fundamental human right. Sections 12 and 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 should be so construed as to effectuate this right..."While referring to an earlier ruling of the High Court that it was not necessary for both parties to be Indian citizens, the Court decided that there was no legal impediment whatsoever for solemnizing the marriage in this case..The petitioner was represented by advocate M Gnanagurunathan and the respondent sub-registrar was represented by advocate KS Selvaganesan..[Read Order]