Posts

In Protecting the Few, Are We Punishing the Free? The Unintended Consequences of Changed Marriage Registration Rules in Uttar Pradesh

By: Divya Tripathi and Matam Manogna

In the recent case of Shanidev and Ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, the Allahabad High Court, suo moto, directed the Uttar Pradesh government to bring in a “robust mechanism” to curb the increasing number of fake marriages registered through fabricated and forged documents. The objective was to rein in the increasing number of elopements and runaway marriages, notably among ‘underage couples’ in violation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006. Such sham marriages, the court opined, entail severe legal and social ramifications, including sexual exploitation, forced labour, and human trafficking.

INTERIM ORDERS

In compliance with the judicial order, the following changes were introduced to the Uttar Pradesh Registration of Marriage Rules 2017 via interim orders:

  1. The application for registration of marriage shall be accepted only in the offices of those districts where either the bride or the groom, or either of their parents, is a permanent resident.
  2. Unregistered rent agreements shall not be accepted as valid proof of residence.
  3. Special directions for couples marrying without the consent of their parents:
  1. The physical presence of the priest or any other person who solemnised such a marriage shall be mandatory at the time of registration of the marriage;
  2. Such a priest/person shall submit a notarised affidavit in which their identification details, such as name, temporary address, permanent address, Aadhar card, mobile number, and any other govt. issued identity card, etc., shall be mentioned;
  3. A video recording of the marriage shall be submitted on a pen drive.
  4. A special stamp shall be affixed to mark such marriages.
  5. It should be explicitly stated that the aforementioned directions were strictly complied with and that the Marriage Registration Officer has verified the submitted documents, and was satisfied that the aforementioned priest was present at the time of such marriage.
  6. A special register should be maintained to record the details and identification of the said priest. It is recommended that such a priest also serve as one of the witnesses to the marriage registration.
  1. Any or all of the abovementioned special directions may be waived by the Marriage Registration Officer, provided a family member of either the bride or the groom is physically present at the time of the registration of marriage. However, such family members must have attained legal age and be related by blood, namely, the father, mother, brother, sister, grandparents (maternal or paternal), son, or daughter.

WHY DOES THE REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE MATTER?

While the non-registration of marriage doesn’t render the marriage void, its absence exposes couples to the risk of being bereft of judicial protection in the event of any legal disputes. It has an evidentiary value under Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (hereinafter, “IEA”)(now, Section 77 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (hereinafter, “BSA”)), which further facilitates the court in allowing a rebuttable presumption in favour of the validity of the marriage under Section 114 of IEA (now, Section 119 (1) of BSA). The high evidentiary value of the marriage certificate was also emphasised by the Supreme Court in Seema vs Ashwani Kumar. The case mandated the compulsory registration of marriages of all citizens of India, regardless of religion. Additionally, marriage certificates have been crucial evidentiary documents over the years. They have been pivotal in protection orders, custody battles and divorce matters, and have also strengthened the inheritance rights of widows and children.

The significant changes in the rules impose stricter requirements upon couples seeking registration of marriage. From requiring further proof to establish the actual occurrence of the marriage to restricting the types of documents that may be accepted as valid proof of residence, it places a disproportionate burden on all runaway couples. In effecting this, the rationale ignores the precarious conditions of inter-caste / inter-religion couples often marrying without the consent of their families. In such cases, the registration of marriage constitutes legal evidence for acknowledging and upholding the individual liberty of the parties, a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Hon’ble High Court in the Shanidev case stated concerns about the fake and fraudulent marriage registration certificates and their possible usage in veiling child trafficking, sexual trafficking, and human trafficking. Their major and repeated concern was the vitiation of the familial and societal fabric in the face of runaway marriages and live-in relationships. Despite acknowledging the presence of “genuine litigants who truly require judicial protection and intervention”, the Hon’ble Court, in its zeal to protect young citizens and their families, has left the “relatively few” couples marrying without the consent of their families helpless and vulnerable.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO CHOOSE ONE’S PARTNER

The Constitution of India safeguards the privacy and personal liberty of individuals to the extent allowed by reasonable restrictions. A person exercising their choice to a partner falls within such constitutional safeguards as underscored in the Shakti Vahini case. In such circumstances, the following fundamental rights are invoked:

  1. Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty and Right to Privacy.
  2. Article 19 (1)(a) & (c): Right to Freedom of Expression and Association.
  3. Article 14: Equal Treatment and Equal Protection of the Law and Safeguards against Arbitrariness.

Therefore, the right to choose one’s partner is an inalienable part of individual liberty and autonomy under the Constitution. This was unequivocally held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. and ors, wherein it was expressly stated that “neither the state nor the law can dictate” or limit the ability of any person’s choice of a partner. Furthermore, in Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court emphatically stated that in a democratic and free country, a person of legal age is free to marry whomever they like. Moreover, familial or social approval isn’t the prerequisite for recognition of such intimate personal decisions. If the family disapproves of an inter-caste or inter-religion marriage, by virtue of the Constitution, their recourse is merely limited to withdrawing social ties with their son or daughter, and in no circumstance can they issue threats, harass, or incite violence against the couple.

Despite constitutional provisions and precedents that strengthen individual autonomy and personal liberty, the interim order requires the presence of blood relatives of the couple or the Purohits who solemnised their wedding to register the marriage. This shifts the power into the hands of societal elements beyond the individual when they seek to register their marriage which may or may not be aligned with social mores of caste and religion.

Further, video recording of the marriage and its submission to the registration officer has been made a mandatory prerequisite. This violates the right to privacy acknowledged by the Puttaswamy judgment. It is also a significant violation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (hereinafter, “DPDP Act”). The DPDP Act promotes fair and transparent lawful processing (Section 5), while also emphasising the need to collect only a minimum amount of personal data [Section 6(3)], which can be used scarcely for a pre-consented purpose [Section 6 (1) & (2)].

The possible aim of the video recording requirement is to prevent the issuance of fraudulent marriage certificates, particularly in cases involving minors. However, a video hardly shows the age or presumable age of the parties involved in such videos. On the other hand, such video footage, if not handled appropriately, might find its way into the hands of unscrupulous elements of society that are invested in employing violent means to counter people’s choice of their spouses. This measure increases the likelihood of unsafety for vulnerable couples.

It is thus clear that these interim measures are encroaching on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. But that in itself does not make the measures illegitimate. When state measures impinge upon people’s fundamental rights, they need to pass the tests of legitimate aims, suitability, necessity, and proportionality as enumerated by the jurisprudence on the doctrine of proportionality. Although the state government’s goal to ensure a coercion- and fraud-free marriage registration process is a legitimate aim, the measures taken to curb fraudulent marriage certificates are excessive for this purpose.

Justice Kant said in the Bihar SIR hearings, “any document on earth can be forged,” and then added that any cases of forgery are to be treated on a case-by-case basis.  For similar reasons, the doctrine of proportionality demands that the interim order be rolled back. This order violates individuals’ right to choose a spouse, and the means employed to curb the fraudulent marriage registration process do not pass the proportionality test. These measures create undue pressure on vulnerable couples who already face societal censure by mandating their marriage be registered in the same district where they or their parents ordinarily reside, especially when non-runaway couples are not required to undergo such a level of scrutiny. This differential impact in its effects violates Article 14.

These forms of paternalistic control in the guise of nuanced procedures weigh heavily on runaway couples who often risk their lives when exercising their fundamental right to choose their partner. In the next segment, we will discuss possible measures to navigate the conundrum identified in the previous sections, thereby establishing that the state’s interim measures are not the least restrictive in the given context.

CALL AHEAD

The orders, while well-intentioned, have introduced layers of regulation on the marriage registration process, which risk infringing upon individual liberty and life as protected by Part III of the Constitution. Though we acknowledge the perils of a lax marriage registration system letting fraudulent marriages be registered, the ultimate objective of the State must be to establish a framework that is both effective in curbing abuse and steadfast in upholding constitutional guarantees. Some of such measures that could effectively bring the framework in consonance with the values and ideals of the Constitution are as follows:

  1. The strengthening of the registration process by linking the proofs of identity and age verification cards with each other, such as linking the voter identity card with other relevant identity proofs of the parties involved.
  2. The safeguarding of the identities of vulnerable couples by introducing mechanisms that allow them to pre-emptively reach out to institutions that may protect them. Additionally, introducing a blanket ban on the mandatory submission of full wedding videos of couples.
  3. The transformation of marriage officers from being gatekeepers to facilitators as a policy measure. Thus, mandatory nationwide special training conducted at district levels, underscoring the importance of knowledge of ethical data handling, constitutional and fundamental rights of the couples, and challenges faced by inter-caste and inter-faith couples, will be essential.
  4. Shifting the existing paradigm from a majorly policing approach to a rights-based protection model. Intrinsic to which the training of relevant officers to guide them to uphold the DPDP Act 2023 effectively (as data processors) will be essential. It, in turn, shall aid in the officers’ desisting as a rule from disclosing personal information of any couple without their consent.

These suggestions are imperative for the realisation of the fundamental rights guaranteed also to the runaway couples. For couples already struggling to navigate the pushback of crossing caste and religious lines, the exercise of registering their marriage mustn’t become an added burden because of undue bureaucratic intrusion and overreach. Now, the legislature has a challenging constitutional responsibility to introduce reforms that strike a balance between the public interest and individual freedom with equal care.

(Divya is an independent researcher and alumna of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, and RMLNLU, Lucknow. Manogna is a policy scientist and alumna of the Erasmus Mundus Public Policy Programme (Governance & Development), and NLU Odisha. They write in their personal capacity, and the views expressed are solely their own. The authors may be reached at adv.divyatripathi@gmail.com and matam.manogna9@gmail.com, respectively.)

Cite as: Divya Tripathi and Matam Manogna, In Protecting the Few, Are We Punishing the Free? The Unintended Consequences of Changed Marriage Registration Rules in Uttar Pradesh, 20th November 2025 <https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2025/11/20/in-protecting-the-few-are-we-punishing-the-free-the-unintended-consequences-of-changed-marriage-registration-rules-in-uttar-pradesh/> date of access.

Leave a Reply