MP High Court Slams Ex-Notary For Attesting Party's Second Marriage Document

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (January 19) slammed an Advocate challenging termination of his notary practice, which action was taken after he attested a document certifying solemnization of second marriage of a party, without being authorised to do so.

To top it, the document was attested during the subsistence of the party's first marriage.

While the Petitioner claimed he was not granted an opportunity to present his defence before termination, the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf orally remarked,

"We'll refer his case to (Bar) Council for taking disciplinary action, for removal from the roles of advocate... Why, no? This also is a professional misconduct".

The petitioner thereafter prayed for withdrawal of the plea. Allowing the request, the Court observed,

"The petitioner impugned the order dated 29-10-2025, whereby the certificate of the petitioner to practice as a notary has been cancelled on the grounds that he has attested a document certifying a marriage. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions from the petitioner, who is present in court, prays leave to withdraw the petition. Petition is accordingly withdrawn".

The petitioner had contended that the termination order violated the principles of natural justice as it was passed without any findings, inquiry or speaking order. It was further argued that no opportunity of hearing was granted and that no inquiry was conducted to substantiate the allegations levelled against him.

The bench questioned the petitioner regarding the affidavit relating to the second marriage and specifically asked about the authority under which it was attested.

The court noted that the affidavit pertained to the solemnization of second marriage of a client despite the subsistence of first marriage. Such a conduct, the bench noted, raised serious concerns regarding professional ethics.

The court further noted that an earlier Division Bench had directed an inquiry against the petitioner after the said affidavit was filed in previous proceedings. Pursuant to the proceedings, a show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted a reply.

While the petitioner acknowledged the facts, he maintained that no proper inquiry was conducted. He urged the court to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry. The bench, however, observed that the impugned order was appealable and that the petitioner could have availed the statutory appellate remedy.

In view of the petitioner's request, the writ petition was ultimately dismissed.

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Shukla v State of Madhya Pradesh [(WP) 46456/2025]