Marriages may also be registered within the digital presence of events, the Delhi High Court has dominated, announcing that within the provide instances, electorate can’t be averted from exercising their rights as a result of a inflexible interpretation of regulation which requires “personal presence”.
Hearing a plea by way of a US-based Indian couple searching for to sign up their marriage right here thru video conferencing, Justice Rekha Palli opined that now not treating bodily presence as a compulsory requirement would additionally inspire events to simply get their marriages registered.
“I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the term “personal appearance” in Clause 4 of the Registration Order must be learn to incorporate presence secured thru Video Conferencing. Any different interpretation, would now not simplest frustrate the very goal of this really helpful law, however, it might additionally undermine the usage of this vital and simply available instrument of Video Conferencing,” the pass judgement on mentioned in her order dated September 9.
She mentioned the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014 is welfare law, promulgated on the example the Supreme Court to inspire the registration of marriages.
“The insistence of physical appearance even when their personal appearance can be easily secured through video conferencing, will definitely make it more cumbersome for parties to come forward for the registration of marriages. This will negate the very purpose of enactment of the Registration Order and cannot be permitted,” the order additional reads.
The courtroom allowed the couple to mark their “personal appearance” sooner than the Registering Authority thru video conferencing after filing their software for the registration of marriage thru their suggest/Power of Attorney Holder in bodily shape alongwith copies of all supporting paperwork duly notarized, both by way of the notary public within the United States of America or by way of a notary public right here.
It directed that the 2 witnesses would seem bodily sooner than the Registering Authority with their unique ID proofs at the date notified by way of the Registering Authority.
The Authority will then expeditiously sign up the wedding and factor the Marriage Registration Certificate inside a duration of 2 weeks’ from the date of receipt of the applying, the courtroom added.
In the prevailing case, the couple claimed that their marriage was once solemnised in 2001 as according to Hindu rituals, however they didn’t get the similar registered as they moved in another country previous to the creation of the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014.
Considering that their software for a inexperienced card was once not being processed within the United States for need of a wedding certificates, the couple approached the native authority right here for issuance of a wedding certificates, who maintained that bodily presence of the events was once a compulsory requirement.
The couple, represented thru senior suggest Vibha Datta Makhija, moved the prime courtroom after their illustration to the authority involved for digital look remained unanswered.
The courtroom noticed that whilst the “universe has undergone a sea change” because the time when the Registration Order was once notified, the Registering Authority was once “refusing to recognize the reality that with the technology as is available today, web portals and Video Conferencing have become almost the norm”.
Acknowledging the acceptance of video conferencing even within the judicial device on this nation, the courtroom mentioned that “these aspects appear to have been simply overlooked by the Registering Authority, who is continuing to insist on that the parties must remain present physically before him”.
“I am of the view that, in times such as these, when technology has proven to be the bridge that ensured uninterrupted communication, widespread dissemination of information in public interest and the smooth functioning of society, the Court cannot allow a rigid interpretation of the statute to prevent citizens from exercising their rights,” the pass judgement on mentioned.
The courtroom mentioned that the duty assigned to the Registering Authority was once to sign up a wedding that has already been solemnised, clarifying the “misconception that a marriage is being solemnized before the Registering Authority”.