The Delhi High Court has refused to direct authorities to waive or shorten the mandatory 30-day notice period under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, ruling that personal hardship — however genuine — cannot override an express legislative mandate. The judgment, delivered by a single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, reinforces the limits of writ jurisdiction when statutory procedures are unambiguous.

Background: What the Couple Sought

A couple had filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking exemption from the statutory waiting period and directions to solemnise their marriage before 10 June. They argued that one of them had secured employment abroad and was required to join before that date, making it impractical to wait out the mandatory period.

According to the court's order, the petitioners had submitted a notice of intended marriage before the Marriage Officer, Kalkaji, on 11 May under Section 5 of the SMA. Their marriage had accordingly been scheduled for 19 June — well within the statutory framework but beyond the petitioners' preferred date.

What the Court Ruled

Justice Kaurav held that Section 16 of the SMA expressly contemplates solemnisation of marriage only after the lapse of 30 days from the publication of notice, and that no court can rewrite or dilute this scheme in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

'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,' the judgment stated.

The court invoked the Latin maxim dura lex sed lex — 'the law is hard, but it is the law' — holding that 'mere personal hardship or individual inconvenience, howsoever genuine, cannot furnish a ground to dilute or bypass mandatory statutory compliance.'

Why Earlier Precedents Were Distinguished

The petitioners had relied on earlier decisions of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts to support their case. Justice Kaurav rejected that reliance, noting that those judgments addressed issues of notice publication, privacy, personal liberty, and societal interference in marriages — not a prayer for curtailment of the waiting period on grounds of personal exigency.

'The present case neither involves any challenge to the procedure 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,' the court clarified.

The Limits of Judicial Review

Citing settled principles and Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that where a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone. It cautioned against courts 'twisting the clear language of an enactment' to avoid hardship, real or imagined.

'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,' Justice Kaurav said, drawing on Supreme Court authority.

The court further held that the 30-day waiting period is not merely procedural but forms part of a legislative framework consciously enacted by Parliament, and granting the relief sought would effectively amount to directing statutory authorities to violate the law.

Significance of the Ruling

The judgment draws a clear line between statutory procedures that courts may scrutinise — such as privacy concerns around public notice — and mandatory timelines that Parliament has set with deliberate purpose. This is particularly relevant given ongoing debates around the SMA's notice requirements, which have previously attracted judicial attention on privacy grounds.

The petition was dismissed. With the couple's marriage already scheduled for 19 June under the statutory procedure, the ruling leaves the legal framework intact while closing off a potential avenue for case-by-case exemptions on hardship grounds.