During the course of arguments in court, Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra had floated the idea of reforming the rules in August 2015, after the court had expressed “grave concern” over minors eloping and marrying in Arya Samaj temples located in the city’s Yamuna Bazaar.
Eight years ago, a woman converted and married her partner in an Arya Samaj ceremony. However, her family filed a case alleging that she was a minor. The couple moved the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and “protection of life and liberty”. The court sent the woman to a government home pending investigation. After a thorough probe, the allegations turned out to be false and the HC quashed the FIR.
While it was a happy ending for the couple, the state decided to reform marriages in temples. This, however, has now become a source of conflict within the Delhi government, with the matter reaching the Union Home Ministry, The Indian Express has learnt.
During the course of arguments in court, Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra had floated the idea of reforming the rules in August 2015, after the court had expressed “grave concern” over minors eloping and marrying in Arya Samaj temples located in the city’s Yamuna Bazaar. “In most such cases, the marriages are either inter-caste or even sometimes inter-religion… in which case, conversion certificates of the same are also issued by the same mandir…,,” the court had observed.
In October 2013, the court had restrained five temples in Yamuna Bazaar from conducting Arya Samaj marriages or conversions after it emerged that the temples were not registered with the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha — which is required to register marriages under the Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937.
Mehra submitted in court that the Delhi government be permitted to look at the matter from a “larger perspective” by examining the issue of marriages being performed as per Hindu rites in several temples being run or managed by trusts, societies and other entities in Delhi in an unregulated manner.
Subsequently, a committee comprising senior officials of revenue, home, art and culture and law departments was formed. In its report, it recommended that all temples performing marriages should be enrolled with the revenue department. It also prepared guidelines to govern temples. In October 2016, the court directed the government to notify the rules within eight weeks. That was the beginning of a prolonged conflict.
The initial objection came from the law department, which said the rules appear to be “beyond the scope” of the Hindu Marriage Act. It instructed the revenue department to get information from other states regarding prevalent practices.
Mehra suggested that the guidelines be notified through an executive order. But the divisional commissioner (revenue) shot down the idea and requested standing counsel (civil) Ramesh Singh to defend the department in court. “Mehra then requested that he be discharged from the case. Singh also requested that he be discharged as the revenue department was not in favour of such rules…,” sources said.
In January, the revenue department approached the Ministry of Law through the Union Home Ministry for another opinion on the issue. The ministry sought certain clarifications, which were furnished. “But the revenue department is still awaiting a response of the Law Ministry. Recently, a reminder was sent to it. There is no immediate resolution in sight,” a senior official, wishing anonymity, said.