Back
Directs Prosecution of Advocate for Solemnizing
In a strongly worded judgment, the has ordered against advocate for solemnizing a in his chamber located within the District Court premises at Kanpur Nagar. A division bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani termed the advocate’s conduct “disgraceful and demeaning to the noble profession of advocacy” and directed the to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of his license to practice.
The court’s directions came in the course of a writ petition challenging an FIR registered at , under . During the hearing, the State informed the bench that petitioner no. 2—the alleged victim—was a minor. Her educational certificate recorded her date of birth as , while the marriage documents, prepared on the basis of her Aadhaar card, showed . This discrepancy triggered a detailed inquiry into how the marriage was solemnized.
The Chamber and the
The court noted that Pandey, who serves as the Pradhan of the , performed the marriage without any effort to verify the girl’s age from academic records. Relying solely on the Aadhaar card, he issued a marriage certificate bearing Serial No. A-14758. However, during the proceedings, Pandey produced a different certificate with the same serial number, issued in for an entirely different couple, claiming that the certificate presented by the petitioners was forged.
“The conduct of the respondent no. 4 [Pandey],” the bench observed, “squarely comes within the precincts of ,” which is a under the BNS. The court further found that Pandey had made “” and “left no stone unturned to .”
The Kanpur Nagar District Judge’s inquiry report confirmed that the marriage had been performed in Pandey’s chamber within the court complex. To corroborate this, petitioner no. 1—who had been arrested and sent to jail—was brought from prison and independently identified the chamber. Although the shutter had been repainted and a flexi board bearing another advocate’s name installed, the physical features, including a broken floor at the entrance, matched the description. The petitioner also identified a nearby photocopy shop he had used.
Precedent and Professional Ethics
The High Court relied heavily on the ’s observations in Ilavarasan v. Superintendent of Police (), where the apex court cautioned that advocates, while acting as counsel, should not undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages. Such conduct, the warned, could turn advocates’ chambers or offices into “,” undermining the dignity of the legal profession.
Taking exception to Pandey’s actions, the noted that he had accepted ₹15,000 in the name of the marriage, performed the ceremony inside court premises illegally, and issued a stamped with a serial number already used for another couple. The court directed Pandey to deposit the ₹15,000 with the Senior Registrar within four weeks, which would eventually be transferred to petitioner no. 1 upon furnishing account details.
Directions and Implications for the Legal Profession
Beyond ordering , the bench restrained the from performing any sanskar (ritual) until further orders. The was directed to take appropriate action against Pandey for cancellation of his license and to submit a compliance report within two months. The court also instructed the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to ensure that no marriages are conducted in advocates’ chambers within the court premises and to take action against any person violating this directive.
The judgment sends a clear message to the legal community: lawyers who misuse their professional standing and court premises to facilitate illegal acts like will face stern consequences. The bench’s reliance on the Ilavarasan precedent reinforces the principle that an advocate’s chamber is a place for legal consultation and court work, not a venue for ceremonial functions that circumvent the law.
A Broader Call for Accountability
Legal experts view this order as a significant step toward curbing the practice of , particularly when facilitated by professionals who ought to uphold the law. The High Court’s directive to the Bar Council to consider license cancellation underscores that of this nature strikes at the root of the ethical obligations of advocates. It also highlights the judiciary’s willingness to invoke criminal law against those who child marriages, even when the marriage is solemnized under the guise of religious rites.
The case is listed for further hearing on , when the authorities are expected to submit their reports on compliance. Meanwhile, the prosecution of Pandey will proceed based on the inquiry report and the findings recorded by the High Court.
In a profession where trust and integrity are paramount, the verdict stands as a stern reminder that chambers cannot be sanctuaries for illegality—and that the bench will act decisively when the bar fails to police its own.
