Dolly Rani v Manish Kumar Chanchal (2024) is a watershed case under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) that underscores the mandatory nature of certain Hindu marriage rituals. The Supreme Court held that Saptapadi – the seven steps around the sacred fire – is an indispensable element under HMA s 7, and that a marriage cannot be legally valid without it. The Court therefore invalidated the parties’ union and all registration certificates issued under the Uttar Pradesh Rules, reaffirming that civil registration (s 8) is merely evidentiary, not a substitute for ceremonies. This commentary critically analyses the judgment, situating it in historical and constitutional context. It questions whether rigid ritual orthodoxy unduly excludes marginalized groups (for example, Dalits with distinct marriage customs) and how it impacts gender equality and individual liberty. It also explores whether the UP Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, and HMA ss 7–8 may require reform. A comparative lens is applied to Hindu marriage laws in Bangladesh and Nepal, where registration and inclusivity are being pursued. Finally, the piece suggests legislative and policy reforms to harmonize Hindu matrimonial law with constitutional values of equality and autonomy.
Keywords: Hindu Marriage Act 1955; Saptapadi; Ritual Solemnization; Marriage Registration; Personal Law
Citation: khalilullah, M.I. (2025) “Rituals, Rights, and Recognition: Reassessing Hindu Marriage Validity in India after Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal”, The Mandamus, 01(01), pp. 01–08. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17197730.
