Married couples in Uttar Pradesh can now only register their marriage in a district where at least one of the spouses or their parents usually live.
Couples will also have to submit an affidavit from the purohit or priest who solemnised the wedding, containing their full details, along with a video recording of the ceremony. Moreover, an unregistered rent agreement will not be accepted as proof of residence.
This is due to the notification of new, more stringent rules for the registration of marriages by the Uttar Pradesh government on June 6. The move, which makes it significantly harder for couples to marry without their families’ consent, is a direct consequence of a judgement delivered by the Allahabad High Court on May 12.
Crucially, the court clarified that these stringent requirements “shall specifically apply to the registration of marriages involving runaway couples – i.e., those who have entered into a matrimonial alliance without the consent of their respective family members”. If family members are present, a marriage officer has the discretion to waive these conditions.
The order effectively creates a separate, more stringent category of registration for couples that elope. This raises concerns about undermining the fundamental right of adults to choose their partners that has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
The judgement came from a single judge, Justice Vinod Diwakar, who clubbed together 125 similar petitions filed by couples seeking police protection from their families after marriage.
However, instead of sticking to the core demand for protection, the court pivoted towards a sweeping inquiry into what it termed a “systemic problem” of fraudulent marriages that required the court “to establish a robust mechanism for thorough document verification”. Given the court had also found allegedly forged Arya Samaj documents, it ordered amendment of the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 within six months to “ensure stringent accountability of trusts and societies involved in solemnising and registering marriages” for the sake of “the validity and sanctity of marriages.”
Threat to the ‘social fabric’?
From the very first hearing in the case in July 2024, the court expressed deep concern over the authenticity of “runaway marriages” and their impact on society. It noted in the judgement that many petitions for protection by married couples are based on “fabricated marriage certificates and forged Aadhar Cards” and that such practices have set a “disturbing precedent that threatens to adversely affect the social fabric of society.”
The court made alarming claims: that in many cases, brides have been found to be minors and that men have entered these alliances without disclosing previous marriages, using “fake certificates and morphed photographs”.
Such unions, the court said, are not just a threat to the “sanctity of marriage” but also facilitate “human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and other social evils.” According to the court, “[t]he children involved suffer profound emotional and psychological trauma resulting from social instability, exploitation, coercion, manipulation, and interruption of their education.” Describing the marriages as “clandestine unions”, the judgment laments that they often result in “families being torn apart by sudden and secretive alliances.”
However, the court’s conclusions are not backed by any data. The data that the judgement refers to is either inconclusive or does not directly support the court’s claims.
Data under scrutiny
The court’s primary concern seemed to stem from the unusually high number of marriage registrations in Ghaziabad. The judgment cited a report from the Inspector General of Registration showing that of the 1,00,156 marriages registered in Uttar Pradesh between August 2023 and August 2024, a staggering 29,022 were in Ghaziabad. Of these, over 19,000 were handled by a single sub-registrar’s office.
The court interprets this as evidence of a large-scale, organised fraud. However, the judgement makes a leap from high volume to proven fraud without presenting direct evidence linking the two. It does not consider alternative explanations for the high volume, such as Ghaziabad’s accessibility for couples from across western UP or the relative ease of accessing marriage registration services in an urban hub vis-à-vis other parts of the state.
The other key data point comes from a police verification report of 77 of the 125 petitions before the court. The report, submitted by the Prayagraj Commissioner of Police, found that in ten of these cases, the marriage certificates, purportedly from Arya Samaj organisations, were forged.
This indicates a fraud rate of 13% within this small sample, which contradicts the judgement’s claim that “[genuine] cases are relatively few compared to the large number of petitions based on fabricated documents and false claims.”
The court also noted that after police verification was ordered of the identity and marriage of the petitioners before it, “in almost 25% of the cases, the petitioners ceased to appear before the Court”. It implies that their non-appearance is an admission of guilt. However, it fails to consider other possibilities: the couples may have reconciled with their families, been intimidated into withdrawing or simply run out of the financial resources needed to pursue the case.
The court has used these findings to justify new rules that will impact all eloping couples, including those whose documents may be genuine. The judgement does not address whether imposing such burdensome requirements on everyone is a proportionate response to the issue.
The court also does not provide any rationale for making the registration requirements optional for couples whose family members are present during the registration, according to the discretion of the registrar. The underlying assumption – that marriages approved or arranged by families will not involve child marriages or use forged documents – is not supported by any data or reasoning in the judgement.
Open probe
Based on these findings, the court has not only framed new rules but had also in earlier orders in the matter greenlit a broad, open-ended police investigation into the functioning of organisations that solemnise such marriages in Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar and Prayagraj.
In its final order, the court asked the police to prepare a “comprehensive list of all trusts and societies performing marriages within the territorial jurisdiction of the districts of Gautam Buddha Nagar and Ghaziabad.” It further directed the police to conduct a “thorough and discreet inquiry” into the activities and finances of these trusts, profile their key functionaries and identify the entire network of people who assist eloping couples. In response, police in Ghaziabad and Prayagraj have already registered 16 first information reports against various trusts and individuals for allegedly conducting fraudulent marriages and issuing forged marriage certificates.
This raises concerns of judicial overreach and a witch-hunt against organisations that assist eloping couples – most of which are likely to be inter-caste unions – to marry.
Justice denied?
Another unusual aspect of the judgment is its final direction. After a lengthy examination of the alleged fraud, the court disposed of all 125 petitions by couples seeking police protection. The couples were simply directed to approach the local senior superintendent of police who, the court said, would verify their claims and then take “appropriate remedial measures as deemed fit.”
The order ignored the fact that if a direct application to the police were an effective solution, these couples would not have invested the time, money and risk to petition the High Court in the first place. By sending them back to the very authorities they sought to bypass, the court effectively denied them the protection they sought.
