Click the Play button to listen to article

The Allahabad High Court has directed criminal action against an advocate for solemnizing a child marriage in his chamber within the District Court premises at Kanpur Nagar. The Court termed his conduct was "disgraceful and demeaning to the noble profession of advocacy".

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate action against the advocate for cancellation of his license to practice.

The bench passed the order after finding that Prakash Pandey (Rangesh), an advocate and Pradhan of Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha Katra (respondent no. 4), had solemnized the marriage of a minor without verifying her age from academic records.

He had allegedly also issued a forged marriage certificate bearing a serial number already used for another couple.

The Court directed the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to take appropriate action to initiate criminal prosecution against Advocate Pandey, based on the inquiry conducted and the findings recorded by the High Court.

It also directed that no marriages be performed in advocates' chambers within court premises and that appropriate action be taken against persons doing so.

Case In Brief

Briefly put, a writ petition was filed challenging an FIR registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

During the hearing, the State informed the Court that petitioner no. 2 was a minor. Her educational certificate recorded her date of birth as October 16, 2008, whereas the marriage documents showed her date of birth as April 18, 2007, on the basis of her Aadhaar card.

The High Court had earlier directed respondent no. 4/Arya Samaj to explain how it solemnized the marriage without verifying the petitioner's age and without obtaining her educational certificate.

The Court later noted that the marriage was solemnized solely on the basis of the Aadhaar card and that Pandey, the Pradhan of respondent no. 4 institution, made no effort to verify petitioner no. 2's age from her academic records.

Taking note of the same, the bench said that the act "squarely comes within the precincts of child marriage", which is a punishable offence in itself.

The petitioners told the Court that they had met Pandey at the gate of the District Court, Kanpur Nagar, where he gave them his visiting card.

They produced the original marriage certificate and photographs. They stated that the marriage was performed by exchange of garlands, putting vermilion and taking photographs, without performing Saptapadi. They also stated that they paid ₹15,000 to Pandey to solemnize the marriage.

The Court further noted that Arya Samaj rules and regulations treat Saptapadi as sacrosanct for performing Vivah Sanskar.

Pandey, on the other hand, denied having solemnized the marriage or issuing the certificate and claimed that he had sold the chamber in 2021.The 

Kanpur Nagar District Judge's inquiry report found that Pandey solemnized the marriage in his chamber in the District Court Complex, Kanpur Nagar.

During the inquiry, petitioner no. 1, who had subsequently been arrested and sent to jail, was brought from jail and asked to independently identify the place where the marriage had taken place. He identified the chamber.

The Court noted that the chamber's shutter had subsequently been repainted and a flexi board bearing another advocate's name had been installed. However, after the flexi board was removed, the petitioner again identified the chamber from its physical features, including the broken floor at the entrance.

The petitioner also identified the photocopy shop and the person operating it, stating that he had got photocopies of some papers done from that particular shop.

The Court also examined the marriage certificate bearing Serial No. A-14758.

Pandey had produced another certificate bearing the same serial number, issued in 2023 for the marriage of Nidhi and Anup. He therefore claimed that the certificate produced by the petitioners was forged and that he had not issued it.

However, the High Court noted that the certificates relating to the two couples bore the same signature.

The Court held that Pandey had made "false and untrue statements" before it and observed that he had "left no stone unturned to mislead this Court".

The Court further concluded that Pandey solemnized the marriage in his chamber in the District Court, Kanpur Nagar.

The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's observations in Ilavarasan v. Superintendent of Police 2023.

The Supreme Court observed that advocates, while acting as counsel or advocates, should not undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages, as this could turn advocates' chambers or offices into matrimonial establishments.

The bench took exception to the advocate's conduct in taking ₹15,000 in the name of marriage, solemnizing it in the court premises illegally, and issuing a forged certificate bearing a serial number already used for another marriage.

Apart from directing criminal prosecution, the Court restrained the respondent institution from performing any sanskar until further orders and directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate action against Pandey for cancellation of his license to practice and submit a report within two months.

The Court also directed Pandey to deposit ₹15,000 before the Senior Registrar within four weeks, which would be transferred to petitioner no. 1 after furnishing the requisite account details.

The Court listed the matter for further hearing on November 15 and directed the concerned authorities to submit their reports.

Tags: