Reena Chadha & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

9. In support of the petition, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the respondent is misinterpreting clause 4 (d) & (e) of the Registration Order by insisting that the personal appearance of the parties, as envisaged therein, mandates them to appear physically before the Registering Authority. By relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (Dr), (2003) 4 SCC 601, she contends that in doing so, the respondent has failed to appreciate that with the significant advancements made in the field of technology when even evidence of witnesses in a criminal trial can be recorded through Video Conferencing, there is no reason as to why the parties cannot be allowed to appear before the Registering Authority through Video Conferencing. The insistence by the respondent on physical presence of the parties overlooks the fact that the personal presence of the parties, as envisaged in Clause 4, can be and ought to be secured through Video Conferencing specially in these trying times when the world is reeling under the effect of Covid–19 and most countries in the world have restricted international travel, making it very difficult for persons residing outside Delhi to travel to Delhi, in order to fulfill the requirement of physically appearing before the Registering Authority.

10. Ms. Makhija further submits that, even otherwise the question whether appearance of the parties though Video Conferencing for purposes of registration of marriage, would be treated as their ‘personal appearance’, is no longer res integra. This Court in the case of Charanjit Kaur Nagi Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1393, as also the Jharkhand High Court in Upasana Bali & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2012 SCC OnLineJhar 1505, Kerala High Court in Pardeep Kodiveedu Cletus & Anr. Vs. Local Registrar of Marriages & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 23204 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ami Ranjan v. State of Haryana 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 3815 have held that applications for registration of marriage ought to be accepted and processed without insisting on the physical presence of the parties.

11. She further submits that even the Special Leave Petition assailing the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ami Ranjan (Supra) has been rejected. She, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed and appropriate directions be issued to the respondent to accept the personal appearance of the parties through Video Conferencing from the US.

12. Per contra, Ms. Shobhana Takiar, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition by contending that that the physical presence of the parties is required for variegated reasons; such as the requirement for capturing and uploading live photographs of the parties and their witnesses on the portal, for the marriage certificate to be physically signed by both parties before the Registrar of Marriage and also the need to assess whether both the bride and groom are of sound mind and are entering into the marriage without any fear. She thus, contends that the personal presence of the parties as required under Clause 4 of the Registration Order has to be read to mean their physical presence before the competent authority, and therefore prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

13. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that the question whether personal appearance for purposes of registration of marriage would include appearance through Video Conferencing has already been considered and answered in the affirmative, as rightly urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioner not only by this Court but by a number of other High Courts as well.

14. In Charanjit Kaur Nagi (Supra) this Court, way back in the year 2007, when the use of Video Conferencing was still at a very nascent stage, permitted registration of marriage without insistence on the physical appearance of one of the parties to the marriage, while permitting appearance through Video Conferencing. It may be useful to refer to paragraph 14 to 16 of the said decision which read as under:

15. It may also be apposite to refer to the decision in Upasana Bali & Anr. (Supra), where the Jharkhand High Court while allowing the petition of a similarly placed couple, who were residing in the United Kingdom (UK), directed the Registering Authority under the Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Rules to accept their application for registration of marriage through their Power of Attorney holder, and to permit them to personally appear before the authority through Video Conferencing. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision wherein the Court noticed that Video Conferencing is readily available with the public at large, read as under: “13. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the requirement of presentation of application for registration of the marriage under the Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2002 can be met fully, when such application is presented by duly authorized power of attorney of the parties, authorized jointly or separately, coupled with satisfaction of the registering authority through videoconferencing from the persons who are seeking registration of their marriage and for that reason the registering authority may permit appearance through video-conferencing whenever any need arise for opting for such procedure.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the document for registration can be submitted through power of attorney, which is specifically provided in the Registration Act itself. However, that provision can be used only for the purpose of presentation of the application by power of attorney of the party to the marriage and to avoid any future dispute, a cheap mode of Video Conferencing can be used for the purpose of verifying the facts from the party to marriage, for which registering authority may take help of Video Conferencing facility provided by several providers, like Skype or even provided by Email providers, like yahoo.com and gmail.com etc. The Video Conferencing is not new and out of reach mode but it is readily available with public at large and is also not expensive one rather a cheap mode to live Internet. Normally the Government officers of the rank of the Registering authority or Registrar of the Marriages, may have been provided with Computer and Laptop facility with Internet connection, which can be used by such officer and if they are not having that facility then the parties may be asked to provide this facility for satisfaction of the registering authority about the genuineness of the parties to the marriage.” (Emphasis supplied)

16. Similar directions were issued by the Kerala High Court in Pardeep Kodiveedu Cletus & Anr. (Supra) wherein the Court, in Paragraph 9 of its judgment observed that the provision for registration of marriage could certainly be interpreted as enabling the Local Registrar to obtain personal appearance through Video Conferencing as well, the said paragraph reads as under:

17. In its recent decision in Ami Ranjan (Supra), a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court having considered the aforenoted decisions of different High Courts, has also passed similar directions for accepting the personal presence of a party for the registration of marriage through Video Conferencing. In fact, the Supreme Court, while rejecting a challenge to this decision, has opined that there was no reason to interfere with these practical directions of the High Court.

18. At this juncture, reference may also be made to the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (Dr), (2003) 4 SCC 601 wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 19 of its decision, expounded upon the importance of Video Conferencing by observing as under: “19. At this stage we must deal with a submission made by Mr. Sundaram. It was submitted that video-conferencing could not be allowed as the rights of an accused, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be subjected to a procedure involving “virtual reality”. Such an argument displays ignorance of the concept of virtual reality and also of video-conferencing. Virtual reality is a state where one is made to feel, hear or imagine what does not really exist. In virtual reality, one can be made to feel cold when one is sitting in a hot room, one can be made to hear the sound of the ocean when one is sitting in the mountains, one can be made to imagine that he is taking part in a Grand Prix race whilst one is relaxing on one's sofa etc. Video-conferencing has nothing to do with virtual reality. Advances in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far away, as they are actually taking place. To take an example, today one does not need to go to South Africa to watch World Cup matches. One can watch the game, live as it is going on, on one's TV. If a person is sitting in the stadium and watching the match, the match is being played in his sight/presence and he/she is in the presence of the players. When a person is sitting in his drawing room and watching the match on TV, it cannot be said that he is in the presence of the players but at the same time, in a broad sense, it can be said that the match is being played in his presence. Both, the person sitting in the stadium and the person in the drawing room, are watching what is actually happening as it is happening. This is not virtual reality, it is actual reality. One is actually seeing and hearing what is happening. Video-conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching, one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video-conferencing both parties are in the presence of each other. The submissions of the respondents' counsel are akin to an argument that a person seeing through binoculars or telescope is not actually seeing what is happening. It is akin to submitting that a person seen through binoculars or telescope is not in the “presence” of the person observing. Thus it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video-conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the “presence” of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per “procedure established by law”. (Emphasis supplied)

19. In light of the aforesaid, 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.

20. In a little over half a decade, since the Registration Order was notified, the universe has undergone a sea change but the Registering Authority, while exercising its power and jurisdiction under the Registration Order is refusing to recognize the reality that with the technology as is available today, web portals and Video Conferencing have become almost the norm.

21. In fact, if not for the acceptance of Video Conferencing as the norm, this Court and the judicial system in this country would have come to a grinding halt, and would not have been able to function at a time, when there was the greatest need for the citizens of this country to have access to justice. These aspects appear to have been simply overlooked by the Registering Authority, who’s continuing to insist on that the parties must remain present physically before him.

22. At this stage, it may also be useful to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India 2020 3 SCC 637 in which the Court emphasized the need to adapt technological advancements while dispensing justice. The same reads as under:

23. The respondents’ plea that the physical presence of the parties is necessary to ascertain whether they are of sound mind and are entering into marriage without any fear or coercion, overlooks the fact that the task assigned to the Registering Authority under the Registration Order is to register a marriage which has already been solemnized. The respondent appears to be acting under the misconception that a marriage is being solemnized before the Registering Authority.

24. I cannot also overlook the fact that The Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014 is welfare legislation, promulgated at the instance the Supreme Court to encourage registration of marriages. There is no gainsaying that a welfare or beneficial legislation must be interpreted in such a manner so as to ensure that the object for which the statute was effectuated is fulfilled, and that there are no unnecessary obstacles to the beneficiaries obtaining the benefits of the same. Keeping in view the fact that the issuance of the registration order is to promote registration of marriages, I am of the considered view that Clause 4 must be interpreted in such a manner that encourages parties to easily get their marriages registered. 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 registration of marriages. This will negate the very purpose of enactment of the Registration Order and cannot be permitted.

25. Thus, looked at from any angle, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the term ‘personal appearance’ in Clause 4 of the Registration Order has to be read to include presence secured through Video Conferencing. Any other interpretation, would not only frustrate the very purpose of this beneficial legislation, but, it would also undermine the use of this important and easily accessible tool of Video Conferencing. The same would also be against the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Praful

Conferencing permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away with the same ease as if he/she is physically present, had allowed the recording of evidence in a criminal trial through Video Conferencing.

26. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is entitled to succeed and is accordingly allowed. It is directed that the parties seeking registration of their marriage under the Registration Order, will be entitled to submit a physical copy of their application through their attorney and also enter personal appearance, as and when required, through Video Conferencing, which application would be duly processed by the registering authority, subject to submission of duly notarized copies of all relevant documents before the authority physically and fulfilling all other procedural requirements.

27. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case, the following specific directions are issued qua the petitioners – a) The petitioners are permitted to submit their application for registration of marriage, through their counsel/Power of Attorney Holder in physical form before the SDM Kishan Ganj, Delhi, alongwith copies of all supporting documents duly notarized, either by the notary public in US, where they are presently residing, or by the notary public in Delhi. b) The respondent will allow the “personal appearance” of the Petitioners for the purpose of Clause 4 (d) and (e) & Form A of The Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage), 2014 through Video Conferencing. c) The two witnesses, as required under the Registration Order will appear physically before the Registering Authority alongwith their original ID proofs, on the date as notified by the authority. d) The respondent will, thereafter, expeditiously register the petitioners’ marriage, and issue the Marriage Registration Certificate within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of the application made by the petitioners.

REKHA PALLI, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 acm