Syed Fayazuddin And Anr vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7103/2026
Date of Decision: 21.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

SYED FAYAZUDDIN AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Appearance not given.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohit Aggarwal and Mr. Prerak
Khurana Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 34802/2026 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7103/2026
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
“a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ directing
Respondent no.2 to exempt/ relax the 30-day notice period;

b) Direct Respondent No.2 to solemnize/ register the marriage of the
th
Petitioners prior to 10 June, preferably in the first week of June;

c) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice.”
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:47:19

2. The facts of the present case would indicate that the petitioners,
intending to solemnize their marriage under the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 [“ the Act of 1954 ”], submitted a notice of intended
marriage before the Marriage Officer, Kalkaji on 11.05.2026 in terms of
Section 5 of the Act of 1954. In terms of the statutory scheme contemplated
under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1954, the statutory waiting period of
thirty days is yet to expire and the date fixed for solemnization of marriage
has consequently been scheduled as 19.06.2026.
3. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 has secured
employment abroad and is required to join before 10.06.2026. It is submitted
that in view of the impending joining date and the consequent relocation
abroad, the petitioners would suffer grave hardship if compelled to await
expiry of the statutory waiting period prescribed under the Act of 1954,
particularly when there exists no legal impediment to solemnization of the
marriage.
4. In support of the submissions, petitioners have placed reliance on the
decision rendered by this Court in the case of Pranav Kumar Mishra &
1
Anr. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr . Reliance is also placed on the
decision passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Safiya Sultana
2
v. State of U.P. , with specific reliance being placed on paragraph nos. 51 to
53, which are extracted as under:-
“51. However, in case, such individuals applying to solemnize their
marriage under the Act of 1954 themselves by their free choice desire
that they would like to have more information about their counterparts,
they can definitely opt for publication of notice under Section 6 and

1
W.P.(C) 748/2009; Dated 08.04.2009
2
2021 SCC OnLine All 19
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:47:19

further procedure with regard to objections to be followed. Such
publication of notice and further procedure would not be violative of
their fundamental rights as they adopt the same of their free will.
Therefore, the requirement of publication of notice under Section 6 and
inviting/entertaining objections under Section 7 can only be read as
directory in nature, to be given effect only on request of parties to the
intended marriage and not otherwise.
52. Thus, this Court mandates that while giving notice under Section 5
of the Act of 1954 it shall be optional for the parties to the intended
marriage to make a request in writing to the Marriage Officer to
publish or not to publish a notice under Section 6 and follow the
procedure of objections as prescribed under the Act of 1954. In case
they do not make such a request for publication of notice in writing,
while giving notice under Section 5 of the Act, the Marriage Officer
shall not publish any such notice or entertain objections to the intended
marriage and proceed with the solemnization of the marriage. It goes
without saying that it shall be open for the Marriage Officer, while
solemnizing any marriage under the Act of 1954, to verify the
identification, age and valid consent of the parties or otherwise their
competence to marry under the said Act. In case he has any doubt, it
shall be open for him to ask for appropriate details/proof as per the
facts of the case.
53. Since the matter relates to protection of fundamental rights of large
number of persons, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall ensure that
a copy of this order is communicated to the Chief Secretary of the State
of U.P. who shall forthwith communicate the same to all the Marriage
Officers of the State and other concerned authorities as expeditiously as
possible.”

5. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that none of the aforesaid
decisions deal with the controversy which arises for consideration in the
present writ petition. The decision in Pranav Kumar Mishra (supra) was
rendered in the backdrop of a challenge to the alleged administrative
practice of dispatching the notice of intended marriage under the Act of
1954 to the residential addresses of the parties as also through the concerned
Station House Officer (“SHO”) for the purpose of verification of addresses.
The present case, however, neither involves any challenge to the procedure
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:47:19

of publication of notice nor any allegation of invasion of privacy or unlawful
interference by the authorities, but pertains solely to a prayer for curtailment
of the statutory waiting period prescribed under the Act of 1954 on account
of personal exigency projected by the petitioners.
6. The decision in Safiya Sultana (supra) arose out of a habeas corpus
petition involving issues relating to personal liberty, right to choose a
partner, societal interference and the constitutional dimensions of privacy
and autonomy in matters of marriage. The said decision was rendered in an
entirely different factual and legal backdrop and does not deal with the issue
of curtailment or waiver of the statutory waiting period contemplated under
the Act of 1954, which alone arises for consideration in the present writ
petition.
7. The statutory scheme, as it presently stands, contemplates
solemnization of marriage only upon expiry of thirty days from the date of
submission and publication of notice under the provisions of the Act of
1954. Reference in this regard can be made to Section 16 of the Act of 1954,
which expressly postulates that a marriage under the said enactment may be
solemnized only after the lapse of thirty days from the publication of notice
contemplated under Section 6 thereof. For the sake of clarity, Section 16 of
the Act of 1954 is extracted as under:-
“16. Procedure for registration .―Upon receipt of an application signed
by both the parties to the marriage for the registration of their marriage
under this Chapter the Marriage Officer shall give public notice thereof in
such manner as may be prescribed and after allowing a period of thirty
days for objections and after hearing any objection received within that
period, shall, if satisfied that all the conditions mentioned in section 15 are
fulfilled, enter a certificate of the marriage in the Marriage Certificate
Book in the form specified in the Fifth Schedule, and such certificate shall
be signed by the parties to the marriage and by three witnesses.”


Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:47:19

8. At this juncture, it also becomes apposite to observe that the writ
Courts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, ordinarily do not compel statutory authorities to act in derogation of
the procedure expressly contemplated under a Statute. It is a settled principle
of law, consistently followed since the decision of the Privy Council in
3
Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor , that where a Statute requires a particular
thing to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be done in that
manner alone or not at all. The said principle continues to hold the field and
has recently been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India
4
v. Rajat Infrastructure (P) Ltd. , and Shri Khereshwar Mahadev VA Dauji
5
Maharaj Samiti v. State of U.P.
9. The statutory mechanism contemplated under the Act of 1954,
including the waiting period prescribed therein, is not merely procedural in
nature but forms part of the legislative framework consciously engrafted by
the Parliament. Once the Statute itself contemplates solemnization of
marriage only after expiry of the prescribed period, this Court, in exercise of
writ jurisdiction, cannot direct the authorities to act contrary thereto,
particularly when deviation from the statutory mandate itself entails penal
consequences under the Act of 1954. In State of W.B. v. Subhas Kumar
6
Chatterjee, the Supreme Court in Para 30 has categorically held that:-
“30. ….Neither the Government can act contrary to the rules nor
the court can direct the Government to act contrary to rules. No
mandamus lies for issuing directions to a Government to refrain from
enforcing a provision of law. No court can issue mandamus directing
the authorities to act in contravention of the rules as it would amount to

3
1936 SCC OnLine PC 41
4
(2023) 10 SCC 232
5
2025 SCC OnLine SC 774
6
(2010) 11 SCC 694
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:47:19

compelling the authorities to violate law. Such directions may result in
destruction of rule of law.”
10. Mere personal hardship or individual inconvenience, howsoever
genuine, cannot furnish a ground to dilute or bypass mandatory statutory
compliance. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex , “the law is hard, but it is the
law”, stands attracted in such circumstances. In Popat Bahiru Govardhane
7
v. Land Acquisition Officer. , the Supreme Court observed that a result
flowing from a statutory provision can never be treated as an evil and the
Court has no power to ignore a statutory mandate merely to relieve hardship
arising from its operation. Similar observations were made in Martin Burn
8
Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta , wherein it was held that a Statute has to be
given effect to irrespective of the consequences flowing therefrom and the
Court cannot set a statutory provision at nought merely because hardship
may result from its operation.
11. It also cannot be lost sight of that while enacting a statutory
framework, the legislature is presumed to be conscious of the practical
implications and possible hardships that may arise in individual cases.
Courts, therefore, must remain circumspect in rewriting or diluting statutory
requirements on considerations of individual exigencies. In Noel Harper v.
9 10
Union of India , and R.K. Garg v. Union of India , the Supreme Court
reiterated that the legislature is presumed to understand and appreciate the
needs of the people and that mere inconvenience or hardship in individual
cases cannot constitute a ground to undermine legislative intent or statutory
compliance .

7
(2013) 10 SCC 765
8
1965 SCC OnLine SC 20
9
(2023) 3 SCC 544
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:47:19

11
12. In, Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma , the Supreme Court
held that while interpreting a statutory provision, the Court can neither add
nor subtract words from the Statute and cannot, under the guise of
interpretation, rewrite the legislative framework enacted by the Parliament.
The relevant Para of the said judgment is extracted as under:-
27. The court has to keep in mind the fact that, while interpreting the
provisions of a Statute, it can neither add, nor subtract even a single word.
The legal maxim “A verbis legis non est recedendum” means, “from the
words of law, there must be no departure”. A section is to be interpreted by
reading all of its parts together, and it is not permissible to omit any part
thereof. The court cannot proceed with the assumption that the legislature,
while enacting the Statute has committed a mistake; it must proceed on the
footing that the legislature intended what it has said; even if there is some
defect in the phraseology used by it in framing the Statute, and it is not open
to the court to add and amend, or by construction, make up for the
deficiencies, which have been left in the Act. The Court can only iron out the
creases but while doing so, it must not alter the fabric, of which an Act is
woven. The Court, while interpreting statutory provisions, cannot add
words to a Statute, or read words into it which are not part of it, especially
when a literal reading of the same produces an intelligible result.
(Vide Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar [(1953) 1 SCC 167 : AIR
1953 SC 148] , Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay [AIR 1959
SC 459] , M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa [AIR 1961 SC 1107]
, Balasinor Nagrik Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya [(1987)
1 SCC 606 : AIR 1987 SC 849] and Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu
Ramulu [(2001) 7 SCC 71] , SCC pp. 78-79, para 13.)
28. The Statute is not to be construed in light of certain notions that the
legislature might have had in mind, or what the legislature is expected to
have said, or what the legislature might have done, or what the duty of the
legislature to have said or done was. The courts have to administer the law
as they find it, and it is not permissible for the court to twist the clear
language of the enactment in order to avoid any real or imaginary hardship
which such literal interpretation may cause.
29. In view of the above it becomes crystal clear that under the garb of
interpreting the provision, the court does not have the power to add or
subtract even a single word, as it would not amount to interpretation, but
legislation.


10
(1981) 4 SCC 675
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:47:19

13. The Court, thus, finds no justifiable ground to permit waiver or
curtailment of the statutory period of thirty days prescribed under the Act of
1954. The relief sought by the petitioners, if granted, would amount to
directing the statutory authorities to act contrary to the express legislative
mandate contemplated under the said enactment.
14. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2026
Nc/SA


11
(2013) 11 SCC 451
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
20:47:19