Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court has directed initiation of criminal proceedings against an advocate for allegedly solemnizing a child marriage inside his chamber within the District Court premises at Kanpur Nagar, observing that such conduct was “disgraceful and demeaning to the noble profession of advocacy.” The Court also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate action for cancellation of the advocate’s licence to practise.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani passed the directions while considering a writ petition arising from an FIR registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). During the proceedings, serious questions arose concerning the age of petitioner no. 2 at the time of her marriage and the circumstances in which the marriage had allegedly been solemnized by Prakash Pandey (Rangesh), an advocate and Pradhan of Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha Katra, arrayed as respondent no. 4.
The Court’s proceedings revealed that the woman represented as petitioner no. 2 was a minor when the marriage was allegedly performed. Her educational certificate recorded her date of birth as October 16, 2008. However, the marriage documents showed her date of birth as April 18, 2007, purportedly on the basis of her Aadhaar card.
The discrepancy became crucial because the age of the girl at the time of marriage determined whether the ceremony fell within the statutory prohibition against child marriage. The High Court therefore sought an explanation from the Arya Samaj institution as to how the marriage had been solemnized without verifying the petitioner’s age through her educational records.
The Court eventually found that the marriage had been performed solely on the basis of the Aadhaar card and that Pandey, who was the Pradhan of the institution, had made no effort to ascertain the petitioner’s age from her academic documents.
The Bench observed that the conduct “squarely comes within the precincts of child marriage”, which itself constitutes a punishable offence. The Court’s concern, however, extended beyond the marriage itself because the alleged ceremony had taken place inside an advocate’s chamber in the District Court complex.
According to the petitioners, they had met Pandey at the gate of the District Court, Kanpur Nagar, where he provided them with his visiting card. They subsequently approached him for solemnization of the marriage. The petitioners produced the original marriage certificate and photographs of the ceremony before the Court.
Their account was that the marriage had been performed through exchange of garlands and putting vermilion, followed by photographs. They stated that Saptapadi, or the customary seven steps around the sacred fire, had not been performed. They further alleged that ₹15,000 had been paid to Pandey for solemnizing the marriage.
The circumstances surrounding the alleged certificate also attracted the Court’s attention. The marriage certificate produced by the petitioners bore Serial No. A-14758. When called upon to explain the certificate, Pandey denied having solemnized the marriage or issued it. He claimed that the certificate was forged and further stated that he had sold the chamber in 2021.
Pandey produced another marriage certificate bearing the same serial number, which had allegedly been issued in 2023 in respect of the marriage of Nidhi and Anup. His case was that the duplicate serial number demonstrated that the certificate relied upon by the petitioners was fabricated and that he had no role in the alleged marriage.
The High Court, however, examined the certificates and found that both documents bore the same signature. The Court also considered the findings of an inquiry conducted by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.
The District Judge’s inquiry concluded that Pandey had in fact solemnized the marriage in his chamber situated within the District Court Complex, Kanpur Nagar.
The inquiry included an identification exercise involving petitioner no. 1, who had subsequently been arrested and sent to jail. He was brought from jail and asked to independently identify the location where the marriage had taken place. He identified the chamber.
The Court noted that the chamber’s appearance had subsequently been altered. Its shutter had been repainted and a flexi board displaying the name of another advocate had been installed. Nevertheless, when the flexi board was removed, petitioner no. 1 again identified the chamber on the basis of its physical features, including a broken portion of the floor at the entrance.
The petitioner also identified a photocopy shop and its operator near the chamber and stated that he had obtained photocopies of certain documents from that particular shop.
The High Court considered these circumstances along with the inquiry report and the documents produced before it. It ultimately concluded that Pandey had solemnized the marriage in his chamber in the District Court premises.
The Court was particularly concerned by the fact that the alleged marriage involved a minor and that the advocate had apparently accepted money for conducting the ceremony without properly verifying the girl’s age. The alleged issuance of a marriage certificate containing a serial number already used for another marriage added another serious dimension to the proceedings.
The Bench also considered the broader professional implications of the advocate’s conduct. It relied upon the Supreme Court’s observations in Ilavarasan v. Superintendent of Police (2023), where the Supreme Court had cautioned that advocates, while acting in their capacity as counsel or advocates, should not undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages, since allowing such practices could result in advocates’ chambers and offices being converted into matrimonial establishments.
Against this background, the Allahabad High Court not only directed criminal action against Pandey but also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate steps concerning cancellation of his licence to practise.
The Court further directed that no marriages should be performed in advocates’ chambers situated within court premises and that appropriate action should be taken against persons violating this direction.
The institution concerned was restrained from performing any sanskar until further orders. Pandey was also directed to deposit ₹15,000 before the Senior Registrar within four weeks, with the amount to be transferred to petitioner no. 1 after the requisite bank account details were furnished.
The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing, with the concerned authorities required to submit their reports.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners approached the High Court in connection with the FIR registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the BNS. During the proceedings, their case brought before the Court the circumstances surrounding the alleged marriage and the age of petitioner no. 2 at the time it was solemnized.
The petitioners maintained that the marriage had been performed by Prakash Pandey, an advocate associated with Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha Katra. According to their account, they met Pandey near the gate of the District Court, Kanpur Nagar, and he provided them with his visiting card.
The petitioners thereafter relied upon Pandey to perform the marriage. They produced the original marriage certificate and photographs before the High Court as material supporting their version.
They stated that the ceremony involved exchange of garlands and putting vermilion, followed by photographs. They specifically asserted that Saptapadi was not performed.
The petitioners further stated that ₹15,000 was paid to Pandey for solemnizing the marriage. The payment was significant in the proceedings because the Court later directed Pandey to deposit the same amount before the Senior Registrar for eventual transfer to petitioner no. 1.
The petitioners’ case concerning the age of petitioner no. 2 was supported by her educational records. Those records showed her date of birth as October 16, 2008. The marriage documents, however, recorded April 18, 2007 as her date of birth on the basis of her Aadhaar card.
The discrepancy meant that the petitioner was below the legally prescribed age for marriage when the ceremony was performed. The petitioners therefore brought before the Court the issue of whether the institution and the person conducting the ceremony had undertaken any meaningful verification before proceeding with the marriage.
The High Court had specifically called upon respondent no. 4, the Arya Samaj institution, to explain how the marriage could have been solemnized without obtaining and examining the petitioner’s educational certificate.
The respondents, however, disputed the allegations against Pandey.
Pandey denied that he had solemnized the marriage and denied issuing the marriage certificate relied upon by the petitioners. His principal defence was that the certificate was forged.
He produced another certificate bearing the same serial number, A-14758, which had been issued in 2023 in relation to the marriage of Nidhi and Anup. According to Pandey, the existence of another certificate with the same serial number established that the certificate produced by the petitioners could not have been legitimately issued by him.
Pandey also claimed that he had sold the chamber in 2021 and therefore sought to distance himself from the allegation that the marriage had taken place there.
The defence thus sought to undermine both the alleged marriage ceremony and the documentary material relied upon by the petitioners. Pandey’s position was that the certificate had not been issued by him and that he had no role in the alleged marriage.
The Court, however, also had before it the inquiry conducted by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. During that inquiry, petitioner no. 1, who had subsequently been arrested and sent to jail, was brought before the authorities and asked to identify the location where the marriage had allegedly taken place.
The petitioner independently identified Pandey’s chamber. The identification was significant because the appearance of the chamber had subsequently been altered. Its shutter had been repainted and a flexi board bearing another advocate’s name had been installed.
Even after the flexi board was removed, however, petitioner no. 1 was able to identify the chamber from its physical characteristics, including the broken floor at the entrance.
The petitioner also identified the nearby photocopy shop and the person operating it, stating that documents connected with the proceedings had been photocopied there. These circumstances formed part of the inquiry material considered by the High Court.
The Court also considered the marriage certificates bearing the disputed serial number. Although Pandey relied upon another certificate carrying Serial No. A-14758, the Bench noticed that the certificates relating to the two couples bore the same signature.
The State authorities, for their part, supported the findings emerging from the inquiry and the material placed before the Court. The State’s position was that the facts warranted appropriate criminal and regulatory action against those responsible for solemnizing the marriage of a minor.
The State also placed reliance upon the age discrepancy and the educational certificate showing the petitioner’s actual date of birth. The fact that the marriage was conducted on the basis of an Aadhaar card, without checking academic records, was particularly relevant to determining whether the responsible persons had exercised the degree of diligence required before solemnizing the marriage.
The High Court therefore had to assess not only the petitioners’ allegations but also the defence offered by Pandey and the findings of the District Judge’s inquiry.
After considering the entire material, the Bench found that Pandey’s denial could not withstand the evidence and circumstances before it. The Court concluded that the marriage had indeed been solemnized in his chamber and that his conduct in relation to the marriage certificate and the petitioner’s age raised serious concerns warranting criminal and professional consequences.
Court’s Judgment:
The Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani took a serious view of the manner in which the alleged marriage had been conducted and the role attributed to the advocate.
The first issue that emerged before the Court concerned the age of petitioner no. 2. Her educational certificate recorded her date of birth as October 16, 2008, whereas the marriage documents recorded April 18, 2007, relying upon her Aadhaar card.
The Court had earlier required the Arya Samaj institution to explain how it had proceeded with the marriage without verifying the girl’s age from her academic records. The material before the Court showed that the marriage had been solemnized solely on the basis of the Aadhaar card.
The Bench found that Pandey, as Pradhan of the respondent institution, had made no effort to verify the petitioner’s age through her educational documents.
The Court held that such conduct brought the matter squarely within the legal prohibition against child marriage. The Bench observed that the act “squarely comes within the precincts of child marriage”, emphasising that child marriage is itself a punishable offence.
The Court’s concern was heightened because the person allegedly conducting the ceremony was not an ordinary private individual but an advocate practising within the District Court premises.
The Bench examined the circumstances under which the marriage was allegedly performed. The petitioners had stated that they met Pandey at the gate of the District Court, where he provided them with his visiting card. They subsequently went to his chamber and paid ₹15,000 for the marriage ceremony.
The Court also took note of the nature of the ceremony described by the petitioners. The marriage was allegedly performed through exchange of garlands and putting vermilion, with photographs being taken, but without Saptapadi.
The Court referred to the rules and regulations of Arya Samaj, under which Saptapadi is treated as sacrosanct for performing the Vivah Sanskar.
The circumstances surrounding the certificate further strengthened the Court’s concern.
The marriage certificate produced by the petitioners bore Serial No. A-14758. Pandey sought to disown the document and produced another certificate bearing the same serial number, allegedly issued in 2023 for the marriage of Nidhi and Anup.
He therefore claimed that the certificate relied upon by the petitioners was forged and that he had neither issued it nor performed their marriage.
The High Court, however, noticed that the certificates concerning the two marriages carried the same signature. The Court considered this circumstance along with the other material collected during the inquiry.
The Bench also examined the District Judge’s inquiry report, which concluded that Pandey had solemnized the marriage in his chamber within the District Court Complex.
The identification exercise conducted during the inquiry was given considerable weight. Petitioner no. 1 had been arrested and sent to jail during the proceedings. He was subsequently brought from jail and asked to independently identify the location where the marriage had taken place.
He identified the chamber.
The Court noted that the physical appearance of the chamber had changed after the alleged marriage. The shutter had been repainted and a flexi board bearing the name of another advocate had been installed.
However, when the flexi board was removed, the petitioner was again able to identify the chamber from its physical characteristics. The broken floor at the entrance was one of the features relied upon for identification.
The petitioner was also able to identify the photocopy shop situated nearby and the person operating it, stating that he had obtained photocopies of documents from that shop.
These circumstances, viewed collectively, persuaded the High Court that the District Judge’s inquiry had correctly identified the chamber where the marriage had been solemnized.
The Court therefore rejected Pandey’s denial and concluded that he had in fact solemnized the marriage in his chamber within the District Court premises.
The Bench went further and found that Pandey had made “false and untrue statements” before the High Court. It observed that he had “left no stone unturned to mislead this Court.”
The finding was particularly serious because it concerned the conduct of an advocate appearing in proceedings before a constitutional court. An advocate is not merely a private litigant’s representative but is also an officer of the Court. The Court therefore expects a high degree of candour and professional responsibility from members of the Bar.
The High Court’s concern extended to the practice of conducting marriages inside advocates’ chambers. The Bench relied upon the Supreme Court’s observations in Ilavarasan v. Superintendent of Police (2023).
In that case, the Supreme Court had observed that advocates, while acting in their capacity as counsel or advocates, should not undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages. Such a practice, the Supreme Court cautioned, could result in advocates’ chambers or offices being converted into matrimonial establishments.
The Allahabad High Court applied that principle to the facts before it and found the alleged conduct particularly objectionable because the marriage had involved a minor and had been conducted within the District Court complex.
The Court observed that taking ₹15,000 in the name of solemnizing the marriage, conducting the ceremony in a court premises, failing to verify the minor’s age and allegedly issuing a marriage certificate bearing a serial number already used for another marriage amounted to conduct wholly inconsistent with the standards expected from a member of the legal profession.
The Bench described the conduct as “disgraceful and demeaning to the noble profession of advocacy.”
The Court therefore directed the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to take appropriate steps for initiating criminal prosecution against Pandey on the basis of the inquiry conducted and the findings recorded by the High Court.
The Court also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate action concerning cancellation of Pandey’s licence to practise law and submit a report within two months.
The directions were not confined to Pandey personally. The High Court also directed that no marriages should be performed in advocates’ chambers located within court premises.
The concerned authorities were directed to take appropriate action against persons who violate this direction. The direction reflects the Court’s concern that judicial premises must remain dedicated to the administration of justice and cannot be converted into venues for private marriage ceremonies.
The Court further restrained the respondent Arya Samaj institution from performing any sanskar until further orders.
The monetary aspect of the matter was also addressed. Pandey was directed to deposit ₹15,000 before the Senior Registrar within four weeks. The amount was to be transferred to petitioner no. 1 after the requisite account details were furnished.
The Court also directed the concerned authorities to submit their reports and listed the matter for further hearing on November 15.
The judgment is significant for another reason. It makes clear that verification of age cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise where a marriage ceremony is being performed. When a peson’s age is material to the legality of the marriage, the authority or person cond