Personal Marriage Registration Appearance May Be Satisfied Via Video Conferencing for Overseas Residents

The petitioners are an Indian couple residing in the USA who solemnized their marriage in New Delhi on April 19, 2022, according to Hindu rites.

Due to work commitments and the care of their eight-month-old child, they were unable to travel to India for marriage registration.

They appointed the mother of Petitioner No. 2 as a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder to sign documents and requested to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) via video conferencing.

The Respondent opposed the plea, arguing that the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014, requires personal appearance for verification and lacks express provisions for virtual presence.

1. Whether the requirement of "physical appearance" under the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014, can be satisfied through video conferencing for parties residing abroad.

2. Whether the Registering Authority can be directed to register a marriage based on the appearance of an SPA holder and virtual verification of the spouses.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding its writ jurisdiction.

The Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014, interpreting it as an administrative scheme intended to encourage registration.

The precedents of Reena Chadha & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Sarabjeet Singh Narula & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which permitted virtual appearances for marriage registration.

The legal philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., noting that "the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience," to justify adapting set procedures to modern technological advancements.

The Court reasoned that the 2014 Registration Order was framed when technology was limited and now requires a "suitable reconsideration" to reflect modern capabilities.

The Court held that a rigid interpretation requiring physical appearance creates unnecessary obstacles for citizens, especially those abroad, while the registering authority maintains the right to verify the genuineness of parties and documents.

The Court determined that virtual presence is a reliable means of communication that satisfies the intent of the law.

To balance procedural integrity with accessibility, the Court established a hybrid verification model: the petitioners appear virtually, while their identity is verified by the physical presence of their parents, the SPA holder, and two independent witnesses before the SDM.

The Court directed the SDM to fix a date for virtual appearance and ordered the parents and two independent witnesses to be physically present with original identity documents for verification; upon compliance, the SDM was directed to process the registration on merits.