New Delhi, June 18 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has declined to direct authorities to waive or curtail the mandatory 30-day notice period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, holding that courts cannot compel statutory authorities to act contrary to an express legislative mandate merely on account of personal hardship.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a couple seeking relaxation of the statutory waiting period, a single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the legal framework under the SMA contemplates solemnisation of marriage only after the expiry of 30 days from the publication of notice and the court cannot rewrite or dilute the statutory scheme in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
The petitioners had approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to exempt them from the 30-day notice period and to solemnise their marriage before June 10.
They submitted that one of them had secured employment abroad and was required to join before that date, making it difficult to wait for the statutory period to expire.
In its order, Justice Kaurav recorded that the petitioners had submitted a notice of intended marriage before the Marriage Officer, Kalkaji, on May 11 under Section 5 of the SMA, and the marriage had been scheduled for June 19 in accordance with the statutory procedure.
Rejecting reliance placed on earlier decisions of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, the judge held those judgments dealt with issues concerning publication of notices, privacy, personal liberty and societal interference in marriages, and not with waiver of the statutory waiting period prescribed under the SMA.
“The present case, however, neither involves any challenge to the procedure of publication of notice nor any allegation of invasion of privacy or unlawful interference by the authorities, but pertains solely to a prayer for curtailment of the statutory waiting period prescribed under the Act of 1954 on account of personal exigency projected by the petitioners,” the Delhi High Court said.
Referring to the statutory framework, the judgement stated that Section 16 of the SMA expressly contemplates solemnisation of marriage only after the lapse of 30 days from publication of notice.
Highlighting the limits of judicial review, Justice Kaurav said that writ courts ordinarily do not direct statutory authorities to act contrary to procedures prescribed by law.
“It is a settled principle of law… that where a Statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be done in that manner alone or not at all,” the judgment said.
The Delhi High Court further held that the waiting period prescribed under the SMA is not merely procedural but forms part of a legislative framework consciously enacted by Parliament.
“Once the Statute itself contemplates solemnization of marriage only after expiry of the prescribed period, this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot direct the authorities to act contrary thereto,” it said.
The judgment further observed that personal hardship, however genuine, cannot justify bypassing mandatory statutory requirements.
“Mere personal hardship or individual inconvenience, howsoever genuine, cannot furnish a ground to dilute or bypass mandatory statutory compliance. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex, ‘the law is hard, but it is the law’, stands attracted in such circumstances,” the judgment said.
It added that courts must remain cautious against rewriting legislative provisions on considerations of individual exigencies and cannot add to or subtract from statutory language under the guise of interpretation.
“The courts have to administer the law as they find it, and it is not permissible for the court to twist the clear language of the enactment in order to avoid any real or imaginary hardship which such literal interpretation may cause,” the Delhi High Court said, referring to Supreme Court precedents.
Holding that granting the relief sought would effectively amount to directing statutory authorities to violate the law, the Delhi High Court concluded that there was no justifiable ground to permit waiver or curtailment of the 30-day period prescribed under the SMA.
“The relief sought by the petitioners, if granted, would amount to directing the statutory authorities to act contrary to the express legislative mandate contemplated under the said enactment,” Justice Kaurav said while dismissing the petition.
–IANS
pds/pgh
