The Delhi High Court has refused to relax the mandatory thirty-day notice period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, holding that personal hardship or individual inconvenience, however genuine, cannot be a ground to bypass statutory requirements. The Court observed that the waiting period forms an integral part of the legislative framework and cannot be diluted through the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed a plea filed by an interfaith couple from Uttar Pradesh seeking a direction to solemnise their marriage before the expiry of the statutory waiting period on account of one of the petitioners securing employment abroad.
Background of the Case
The petitioners intended to solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and had submitted a notice of intended marriage before the Marriage Officer, Kalkaji, on May 11, 2026, in terms of Section 5 of the Act.
Under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the notice is required to be published and a waiting period of thirty days must be observed before the marriage can be solemnised. Consequently, the date fixed for the marriage was June 19, 2026.
However, the petitioners approached the Delhi High Court seeking relaxation of the statutory period, contending that petitioner no. 1 had secured employment abroad and was required to join before June 10, 2026. It was argued that compelling the couple to await the expiry of the waiting period would cause grave hardship, particularly when there was no legal impediment to their marriage.
Issue Before the Court
The principal issue before the Court was whether the mandatory thirty-day notice period under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, could be waived or curtailed in exercise of the High Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Statutory Framework Under the Special Marriage Act
Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act requires parties intending to marry under the Act to submit a notice before the Marriage Officer.
Section 6 provides for publication of the notice, while Section 7 allows objections to be raised within thirty days from such publication.
Further, Section 16 expressly stipulates that a marriage under the Act may be solemnised only after the expiry of thirty days from the publication of the notice.
Court's Observations
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the statutory scheme envisaged under the Special Marriage Act contemplates solemnisation of marriage only after the lapse of thirty days from the publication of notice and that the waiting period is not merely procedural in nature.
The Court held that once the legislature has consciously incorporated such a requirement, the High Court cannot direct statutory authorities to act contrary to the law.
Emphasising the principle of dura lex sed lex—meaning "the law is hard, but it is the law"—the Court observed that genuine personal hardship cannot furnish a valid ground to dilute mandatory statutory compliance.
The Court further noted that while framing legislation, Parliament is presumed to be aware of the practical implications and difficulties that may arise in individual cases. Courts must therefore remain circumspect and refrain from rewriting statutory provisions on considerations of personal exigencies.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, wherein it was held that hardship arising from the operation of a statutory provision cannot justify ignoring its mandate and that courts have no power to overlook legislative requirements merely to alleviate inconvenience.
Reference was also made to Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, where the Supreme Court reiterated that while interpreting a statute, courts can neither add nor subtract words and cannot rewrite legislative provisions under the guise of interpretation.
Relief Sought
The petitioners had sought directions to the authorities to relax the statutory thirty-day notice period and solemnise their marriage before June 10, 2026, preferably during the first week of June.
Delhi High Court's Decision
Rejecting the plea, the Court held that no justifiable ground existed for waiving or curtailing the statutory period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
According to the Court, granting such relief would effectively amount to directing statutory authorities to act contrary to the express legislative mandate contained in the enactment.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
The ruling reinforces the principle that courts exercising writ jurisdiction cannot override explicit statutory requirements on equitable considerations alone.
The judgment also underscores the doctrine of separation of powers and reiterates that any change to the legislative framework governing marriages under the Special Marriage Act lies within the domain of Parliament and not the judiciary.
For couples intending to marry under the Special Marriage Act, the decision serves as a reminder that the thirty-day notice period remains mandatory and must be factored into their future plans.
Key Takeaways
- The Delhi High Court refused to waive the thirty-day notice period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
- The Court held that personal hardship cannot override statutory requirements.
- Section 16 of the Act permits solemnisation only after the expiry of thirty days from publication of notice.
- Courts cannot rewrite legislative provisions while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The writ petition filed by the interfaith couple seeking early solemnisation of marriage was dismissed.
Case Title: Syed Fayazuddin and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7103/2026