The Delhi High Court is now set to conduct a crucial constitutional examination of provisions in the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, that mandate a public notice before marriage. This significant development follows a decision by the Supreme Court, which has refused to take over the case from the High Court.
SC Dismisses Centre's Transfer Petition
On December 19, 2024, a Supreme Court division bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and N V Anjaria dismissed a petition filed by the Ministry of Law and Justice earlier in January 2024. The Ministry had sought the transfer of a pending case from the Delhi High Court to the apex court. The transferred petition challenges the constitutional validity of Sections 6 and 7 of the Special Marriage Act.
The Centre had argued that allowing the case to proceed in the Delhi HC could lead to a multiplicity of proceedings if similar petitions were filed in other High Courts, potentially resulting in conflicting judgments. It also expressed concern about the wastage of public resources. However, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts, declined the transfer request.
The Core Challenge: Privacy vs. Procedure
The legal challenge, pending before the Delhi High Court since October 2020, was initiated by an interfaith couple. Their marriage was opposed by their parents. The petitioners argue that the SMA's mandatory 30-day public notice period, required under Section 6, infringes upon the fundamental right to privacy.
They contend that this provision gives a platform for families to "discourage an intercaste or an inter-religious marriage." Furthermore, they state that the procedural complexity often forces couples to seek alternative routes, such as marrying in a religious institution or converting, to bypass the SMA's requirements. Section 7 of the Act, which deals with the consideration of objections raised against the marriage, is also under challenge.
The Delhi government, which was issued a notice by the High Court in 2020, had not filed its response by August 2022. Consequently, a bench led by then Justice Vibhu Bakhru decided to proceed with hearing arguments without further delay.
Legal Context and Precedents on Case Transfers
The Supreme Court's power to transfer cases between courts is derived from Article 139A of the Constitution. It allows the top court to transfer cases involving substantially the same questions of law, especially those of general public importance.
This decision aligns with a pattern where the SC evaluates the necessity of centralizing proceedings. For instance, in 2022, the Court refused the Centre's request to transfer petitions challenging the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, preferring to first have the benefit of High Court rulings. Conversely, in September 2024, it transferred to itself all petitions challenging various state anti-conversion laws from different High Courts.
It is important to note that a separate petition challenging Section 6 of the SMA, filed by law student Nandini Praveen, remains pending before the Supreme Court since September 2020. The Delhi HC's forthcoming examination will now proceed independently of this parallel proceeding.
The Delhi High Court's impending hearing marks a pivotal moment for marriage laws in India, directly addressing concerns of privacy, personal liberty, and the state's role in regulating personal relationships. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for thousands of couples opting for civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
