The Supreme Court on Thursday directed all the states and union territories to make provisions in three months for compulsory registration of marriages, irrespective of his or her religious affiliations.

“We, therefore, direct that the states and union territories who have not acted to implement the directions given on February 14, 2006 shall forthwith do it and in no case later than three months from (Thursday).”

The states are asked to file affidavits in compliance with the order after implementing the order, said the 11-page order pronounced by a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam.

During the hearing of Smt Seema v Aswani Kumar, the Apex Court invoked constitutional provisions and directed that all marriages be compulsorily registered.

“It has been pointed out that compulsory registration of marriage would be a step in the right direction for the prevention of child marriage still prevalent in many parts of the country,” the court had said in the order.

Response

In response to the direction, five states – Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Meghalaya have made submissions that they have made voluntary the registration of Muslims also.

The Assam Moslem Marriages and Divorce Registration Act, 1935, the Orissa Muhammadan Marriages and Divorce Registration Act 1949 and the Bengal Muhammadan Marriages and Divorce Registration Act 1876 are relevant statutes cited during the arguments for compulsory registration of marriages of the Muslim communities.

The registration of marriages of Hindus, Christians and Parsis are compulsory in the country under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

The court brushed aside the arguments of some states that it would be contravening the Muslim Personal Law prevalent in the states. Jammu and Kashmir Counsel had submitted that, “There is a law in the state making it mandatory for the registration of the marriages, but the authorities do not enforce it due to public outcry.”

Karnataka counsel said, “The order of the court had been complied with and it has been made compulsory in the state.”

The court in the February 2006 order observed, “If the record of marriage is kept, to a large extent, the dispute concerning solemnisation of marriage between the two persons is avoided. As rightly contended by the National Commission in most cases non-registration of marriages affects the women to a great measure.”