The Special Marriage Act 30 day notice Delhi High Court case concerns a plea by an inter-faith couple seeking waiver of the mandatory notice period under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Delhi High Court refused relief. It held that courts cannot dilute statutory requirements based on hardship or apprehension of threats.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the 30-day notice under the Special Marriage Act is mandatory. Therefore, authorities cannot bypass it. The Court also stated that doing so would amount to rewriting the law.
Background of the Case
An inter-faith couple approached the Court to solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They requested waiver of the 30-day notice under Section 5.
Moreover, they argued that public notice could expose them to threats and harassment. They also claimed risk from family members and society. Therefore, they sought urgent protection through waiver of the statutory period.
Issue Before the Court
The main issue was simple. Can courts waive or reduce the statutory notice period under Article 226 due to personal hardship?
However, the Court found no legal basis for such interference.
Court’s Analysis
First, the Court held that the notice requirement is a clear legislative mandate. Therefore, it cannot be altered through judicial orders.
Additionally, Justice Kaurav noted that courts cannot direct authorities to violate the law. Such directions would weaken the rule of law.
The Court observed that hardship alone cannot override statutory provisions. Moreover, it relied on the principle dura lex sed lex (“the law is hard, but it is the law”).
Legal Principles Relied Upon
The Court referred to several Supreme Court rulings. These included:
- Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer
- Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta
- Noel Harper v. Union of India
- R.K. Garg v. Union of India
These cases reinforce that courts cannot ignore legislative intent. Instead, they must apply the law as written.
Courts Cannot Rewrite Statutes
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that judicial interpretation has limits. It cannot become legislation.
Quoting Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, the Court stated that judges cannot add or remove words from a statute. Therefore, the 30-day rule must stand as enacted.
Final Order
The Court rejected the plea for waiver. It held that no exceptional circumstances justified interference.
The Court also clarified its position on the Special Marriage Act 30 day notice Delhi High Court issue. It reaffirmed that statutory timelines must be followed strictly.
Finally, it dismissed the writ petition along with all pending applications.
