Special Marriage Act does not warrant sending prior notice to parties’ residence: Rajasthan HC [Read Order]

In a recent order, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (‘1954 Act’) does not contemplate sending of notices to the residence of those intending to marry under the Act..The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice GR Moolchandani found that such practice is not warranted or authorised by law and further that it amounts to breach of privacy..The order was passed in a PIL initiated by advocate Kuldeep Singh Meena, protesting the insistence on such prior notice being sent by the fourth Additional Judicial Magistrate (‘ADM’) at Jaipur, who functions as the marriage officer..As per the ADM, such notice was required to be sent to the residence of parties prior to their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, through the Station House Officer (‘SHO’). The solemnisation of the marriage would only take place after receiving verification from the SHO of such a notice having been sent..The petitioner’s clients had sought the assistance of the petitioner to get married under the provisions of the 1954 Act. However, when they were informed of the impugned practice of sending prior notice to their respective residences, the clients expressed their discomfort..As noted in the petition, the clients expressed apprehensions that whereas their parents may not object to their marriage, a public notice may unnecessarily provoke protest from neighbours and others in society. Expressing allied concerns, the petitioner argued,.“The Special Marriage Act was enacted to enable a special form of marriage for any Indian national, professing different faiths, or desiring a civil form of marriage. The unwarranted disclosure of matrimonial plans of two adults, who are entitled to solemnize their marriage, may, in certain situations, jeopardize the marriage itself. In certain instances, it may even endanger the life or limb of one or the other party due to parental or social interference.”.Detailed reference was made to Sections 4 to 9 of the Special Marriage Act to contend that the Act does not contemplate the issuance of such notice by the concerned authority. Therefore, it was pointed out,.“…the office of ADM – IV, Jaipur is acting contrary to the law as neither the Act nor any other rule, regulation or by – law enables the marriage officer to send the information of the intended marriage of the concerned parties at the respective addresses of the parties. .The marriage officer sends the information of the intended marriage in a questionnaire letter at the respective addresses of the parties and the same is sent through the S.H.O. of the police station of the concerned jurisdiction. Thus, the procedure, which is followed by ADM – IV, Jaipur is not only arbitrary and illegal but also without the authority of law and against the spirit of legislation.”.The same would also amount to a breach of privacy, following the Puttaswamy case, argued the Petitioner..Further, the petitioner relied on the single judge verdict of the Delhi High Court in Pranav Kumar Mishra & Anr v Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr, wherein it was held,.“…It is to be kept in mind the that the Special Marriage Act was enacted to enable a special form of marriage for any Indian national, professing different faiths, or desiring a civil form of marriage. The unwarranted disclosure of matrimonial plans by two adults entitled to solemnize it may, in certain situations, jeopardize the marriage itself. In certain instances, it may even endanger the life or limb of one at the other party due to parental interference.”.This being the case, the petitioner made written and oral representations to the ADM appraising him of the same. However, when approached for solemnising the marriage of his clients, the ADM/Marriage Officer initially refused to do the same in the absence of a verification from the SHO..It was only when the petitioner demanded that the ADM give reasons in writing for such refusal that the officer “mended his whimsical and illegal procedure” to solemnise the said special marriage..RTI applications made by the petitioner to discern reasons for continuing such practice did not yield any satisfactory response. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court, praying that the impugned practice be prohibited and further that the authorities be directed to comply with the scheme of the 1954 Act in solemnising special marriages..The Court ruled in the petitioner’s favour, concurring with the Delhi High Court that,.“…the procedure for registration of the marriage under the Special Marriages Act, 1954 does not warrant to send a notice at the residence of the parties, much less affix the same at the residence through the SHO..Thus, the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge is that the procedure of affixing the notice at the residence of the parties is not warranted or authorised by law. It has been held that this would amount to a breach of privacy of the individuals.”.Therefore, the Court saw it fit to specifically direct all Marriage Officers in the State of Rajasthan not to dispatch notices to the residence of the applicants who seeks solemnization of their marriage under the Special Marriages Act, 1954..Read the order below. .Read copy of Petition: