PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has taken strong exception to the delay in implementing its directives requiring the mandatory age verification of brides and grooms prior to marriage registration, an initiative designed to curb child marriage across Uttar Pradesh. Expressing grave displeasure over bureaucratic inaction, a single-judge bench comprising Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari summoned the Principal Secretary of the Stamp and Registration Department to appear in person on October 9. The top official has been instructed to present a comprehensive compliance report alongside a detailed written explanation detailing why the court’s earlier orders were disregarded. The judicial reprimand came during the hearing of a criminal appeal filed by Deepak Pal, a resident of Mathura. On September 2, the court had issued exhaustive operational guidelines governing age verification protocols during marriage registrations, explicitly directing the Principal Secretary to submit a verified compliance report by September 30.
Lapse in Communication Draws Judicial Displeasure
During the proceedings on October 5, the Additional Government Advocate representing the state government expressed complete ignorance regarding the compliance status of the directives. Taken aback by the lack of administrative preparedness, the High Court promptly furnished a fresh copy of its September 2 order directly to the state counsel. After consulting with the concerned department head, the counsel sought a two-day indulgence to secure and place the requisite compliance affidavit on record. The bench declined to accept the excuse, emphasizing that such administrative laxity is intolerable when addressing sensitive social legislation. It further transpired from the High Court registry’s internal records that the formal letter communicating the September 2 order was dispatched to departmental officials only on October 5. Criticizing this glaring systemic delay, the bench observed that the casual conduct of state functionaries was entirely unacceptable, noting that the Principal Secretary must explain who bears responsibility for the failure.
Mandatory Digital Safeguards and Institutional Reporting
The court’s earlier directions mandated stringent structural reforms in the state’s marriage registration apparatus to eradicate the menace of underage marriages. Under these regulations, authorities are strictly prohibited from registering any marriage where the bride has not attained the minimum legal age of 18 years or the groom is below 21 years of age. Should the verification process reveal that either party is a minor, the registering officials are under a statutory obligation to transmit immediate alerts to the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer and the competent district authority for swift penal intervention. To prevent manipulation of physical records, the High Court ordered the establishment of an automated online verification infrastructure linked to authentic source records. These documents include birth certificates, educational board certificates, passports, permanent driving licences, and Permanent Account Number credentials. Under the revised framework, the online portal must automatically flag applications pending digital verification and put the registration on hold until authenticity is established.
Registration Not a Mere Mechanical Exercise
Underlining the broader legal sanctity of official documentation, the High Court stressed that solemnizing and certifying a union is neither a mechanical exercise nor a nominal procedural formality. A marriage registration certificate represents an authoritative public document that holds extensive evidentiary value across subsequent legal, civil, and administrative matters. Consequently, any failure to verify age accurately compromises judicial and administrative systems at their foundation. The court warned that procedural omissions, whether intentional or born of negligence, directly defeat legislative and judicial attempts to eradicate child marriage. Reaffirming that statutory safeguards cannot be compromised by bureaucratic apathy, the bench made it clear that accountability must be fixed. The Principal Secretary will now have to appear personally before the court on October 9 to account for the delay and clarify the operational measures instituted to ensure full compliance.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
