Delhi High Court Refuses to Relax Mandatory 30-Day Notice Period Under Special Marriage Act

The Delhi High Court has held that the mandatory thirty-day notice period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, cannot be waived merely on account of personal hardship or urgency. Reaffirming the principle that courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions, the Court dismissed a plea filed by an interfaith couple seeking permission to solemnise their marriage before completion of the prescribed waiting period.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the statutory framework enacted by Parliament leaves no scope for judicial relaxation of the requirement and that individual inconvenience, however genuine, cannot override legislative mandates.

Case Details

Background of the Case

The petitioners intended to solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In accordance with Section 5 of the Act, they submitted a notice of intended marriage before the Marriage Officer, Kalkaji, on 11 May 2026.

Pursuant to Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the notice was published and the statutory waiting period of thirty days commenced. Consequently, the marriage was scheduled for 19 June 2026.

However, one of the petitioners had secured employment abroad and was required to relocate within a short period. Claiming that postponement of the marriage would cause serious hardship, the couple approached the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the authorities to solemnise their marriage before the expiry of the statutory period.

Issue Before the Court

The principal issue before the Court was whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could direct the authorities to waive or curtail the mandatory thirty-day notice period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Statutory Framework

Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act requires parties intending to marry under the Act to give notice to the Marriage Officer.

Section 6 mandates publication of such notice, while Section 7 permits objections to the intended marriage to be raised within thirty days.

Further, Section 16 expressly provides that a marriage under the Act may be solemnised only after the expiry of thirty days from the publication of the notice.

Petitioners' Contentions

The petitioners contended that:

• There was no legal impediment to their marriage.
• One of the petitioners had obtained employment abroad and was required to join within a limited period.
• Insistence on waiting for the completion of thirty days would result in grave hardship.
• The Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to permit solemnisation of the marriage before the expiry of the statutory period.

Court's Observations

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the waiting period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act forms an integral part of the legislative framework and cannot be treated as a mere procedural requirement.

The Court held that once Parliament has expressly stipulated that marriage can be solemnised only after the expiry of thirty days, the High Court cannot direct statutory authorities to act contrary to the legislative mandate.

Emphasising the maxim dura lex sed lex—meaning "the law is hard, but it is the law"—the Court noted that genuine personal hardship cannot furnish a valid ground to dilute mandatory statutory compliance.

The Court further observed that while framing legislation, Parliament is presumed to be conscious of the practical difficulties that may arise in individual cases. Courts must therefore exercise restraint and refrain from rewriting statutory requirements on considerations of personal exigencies.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

The Court referred to 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.

The Court also relied upon Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, where the Supreme Court reiterated that courts cannot add or subtract words from a statute and cannot rewrite legislative provisions under the guise of interpretation.

Decision

The Delhi High Court held that no justifiable ground existed to permit waiver or curtailment of the statutory thirty-day period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

The Court observed that granting such relief would amount to directing statutory authorities to act contrary to the express provisions of the law.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Why the Judgment Matters

The ruling reinforces the principle that courts cannot override clear statutory mandates merely to alleviate hardship faced by individual litigants.

The decision also reiterates the importance of judicial restraint and underscores that any modification of the legislative scheme governing marriages under the Special Marriage Act falls within the domain of Parliament rather than the judiciary.

For couples seeking to marry under the Special Marriage Act, the judgment serves as a reminder that the statutory thirty-day notice period remains mandatory and must be factored into their planning.

Key Takeaways

• 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 mandatory statutory requirements.
• Section 16 of the Act permits solemnisation only after the expiry of thirty days from publication of notice.
• Courts exercising writ jurisdiction cannot direct authorities to act contrary to the legislative mandate.
• The judgment reaffirms the principles of rule of law and judicial restraint.

Case Title: Syed Fayazuddin and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another

Case Number: W.P.(C) 7103/2026