Notice publication under SMA to verify credibility of persons: Centre to Delhi HC

Image Courtesy:shethepeople.tv

In a petition seeking the declaration of sections 6 and 7 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 as null, void and ultra vires to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that, “the intention behind the Act is to keep adequate safeguards to the interest of various parties involved”, according to LiveLaw.

On the issue of a 30-day notice of intended marriage as required under Section 7 of the Act, the Central government told the High Court that if this is set aside, it may not be possible to verify the credibility of the persons seeking to solemnise a marriage.

The petition was filed by one Nida Rehman, who sought directions for setting aside these impugned procedures of issuances of public notice for 30 days inviting objections to the marriage, and for issuance of directions to register her marriage with immediate effect under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Section 5 provides for notice of intended marriage, section 6 lays down that the Marriage Officer shall cause every such marriage notice to be published, and section 7 allows people to object to the marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

According to LiveLaw, the Centre, in its counter-affidavit filed through its Deputy Legislative Council, also said, “The procedure laid down in this Act for registration of marriage is fair and reasonable, and that the conditions relating to solemnisation of Special Marriage mentioned under Section 4 of the Act is in consonance with the intention behind the Act.”

The affidavit also says, “Though right to privacy is now part of fundamental right but it is not an absolute right as held by the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.”

It is noteworthy that the Allahabad High Court in January, had ruled that the requirement of publication of notice of intended marriage under Section 6 and entertaining objections under Section 7 of the Special Marriage Act is not mandatory. The Court had held that such sections would invade the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, including within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-state actors, or the persons concerned.