Why Virtual Appearance For Marriage Registration Not Allowed Despite Supreme Court Orders?: Delhi High Court Asks Govt
The Delhi High Court yesterday asked the Delhi Government why it is not permitting registration of marriages through video conferencing despite a clear direction issued by the Supreme Court in this regard.Referring to the decision in State of Haryana v. Ami Ranjan and Others (2021), Justice Rekha Palli said,"I have read the judgement by the Supreme Court. When the matter has been settled, why...
The Delhi High Court yesterday asked the Delhi Government why it is not permitting registration of marriages through video conferencing despite a clear direction issued by the Supreme Court in this regard.
Referring to the decision in State of Haryana v. Ami Ranjan and Others (2021), Justice Rekha Palli said,
"I have read the judgement by the Supreme Court. When the matter has been settled, why is this application not being allowed by the State Government? I was inclined in your (petitioner's) favor at the very first instance."
The Court was hearing the plea of a NRI couple, seeking exemption from physical appearance for Marriage Registration. They claimed to have been married as long as back on 06.12.2001 and to be residents of USA.
Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhija, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the couple has applied for their green card and must submit the required documents including the marriage registration certificate, which remains pending on account of State's inaction. She stated that the couple has made an online application for marriage registration under the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage Order, 2014) and has sought permission them to appear before the concerned authority through video conferencing.
However, it is alleged that the Sub Division Magistrate, Punjab Bagh, did not respond to the representations made for exemption from physical appearance.
Makhija insisted that the issue is settled in the light of the Supreme Court judgement, and the Delhi Government is only required to facilitate the process. 'Law has to march with technology', the Supreme Court had said in its judgment.
Advocates Santosh Kumar Tripathi and Shobana Takiar sought time to seek instructions in this regard.
The matter is now posted for hearing tomorrow.
Case Title: Reena Chadha & Anr. v. GNCTD