The Allahabad High Court has directed criminal prosecution of an advocate who solemnized a child marriage in his chamber in the Kanpur Nagar District Court complex, calling the conduct “disgraceful and demeaning to the noble profession of advocacy” and asking the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to act against his licence.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has directed the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar to initiate criminal prosecution against Advocate Prakash Pandey (Rangesh), Pradhan of Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha Katra, after finding that he solemnized the marriage of a minor in his chamber within the District Court premises without verifying her age from her academic records.
A Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani passed the order while hearing a writ petition challenging an FIR registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The matter will be heard next on November 15.
Background of the case
During the hearing, the State informed the Court that the second petitioner, the wife, was a minor. Her educational certificate showed her to be below 18, while the marriage documents, which relied on her Aadhaar card, recorded an earlier date of birth. The Court had earlier asked the Arya Samaj institution, respondent no. 4, to explain how it solemnized the marriage without verifying the petitioner’s age or obtaining her educational certificate.
The Court noted that the marriage was solemnized solely on the strength of the Aadhaar card, and that Pandey, as Pradhan of the institution, made no effort to verify her age from academic records. It held that the act “squarely comes within the precincts of child marriage”, a punishable offence in itself.
How the marriage was solemnized
The petitioners told the Court that they had met Pandey at the gate of the District Court, Kanpur Nagar, where he handed them his visiting card. They produced the original marriage certificate and photographs, and stated that the marriage was performed by exchanging garlands, applying vermilion and taking photographs, without Saptapadi, and that they paid Rs 15,000 to Pandey. The Court noted that Arya Samaj rules treat Saptapadi as sacrosanct for performing the Vivah Sanskar.
Pandey denied having solemnized the marriage or issued the certificate, and claimed that he had sold his chamber in 2021.
The District Judge’s inquiry
The inquiry report of the Kanpur Nagar District Judge found that Pandey solemnized the marriage in his chamber in the District Court Complex. During the inquiry, the first petitioner, who had subsequently been arrested and sent to jail, was brought from jail and asked to identify the place on his own. He identified the chamber. The Court noted that the chamber’s shutter had since been repainted and a flexi board with another advocate’s name installed, but that after the board was removed he again identified it from its physical features, including the broken floor at the entrance. He also identified the photocopy shop he had used and the person operating it.
The Court also examined the marriage certificate, which bore Serial No. A-14758. Pandey produced another certificate with the same serial number, issued in 2023 for a different couple, and argued that the petitioners’ certificate was therefore forged and not issued by him. The Court noted, however, that the certificates relating to the two couples bore the same signature.
The Court’s findings
The Court held that Pandey had made “false and untrue statements” before it and that he had “left no stone unturned to mislead this Court”, and concluded that he solemnized the marriage in his chamber in the Kanpur Nagar District Court. It relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Ilavarasan v. Superintendent of Police (2023), which cautioned that advocates, while acting as counsel, should not undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages, since that could turn their chambers or offices into matrimonial establishments.
The Bench took exception to his taking Rs 15,000 in the name of a marriage, solemnizing it illegally in court premises, and issuing a certificate bearing a serial number already used for another marriage.
Directions
The Court directed the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar to take appropriate action to initiate criminal prosecution against Pandey on the basis of the inquiry and its findings. It directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate action for cancellation of his licence to practise and to report within two months, and restrained the Arya Samaj institution from performing any sanskar until further orders. Pandey was also directed to deposit Rs 15,000 with the Senior Registrar within four weeks, to be transferred to the first petitioner on furnishing his account details.
The Court further directed that no marriages be performed in advocates’ chambers within court premises and that appropriate action be taken against those who do so, and called for reports from the concerned authorities by the next date of hearing, November 15.
Why The Child Marriage Order Matters
The order goes beyond the petitioners’ challenge to the FIR and addresses how marriages are solemnized and certified inside court premises. It treats reliance on an Aadhaar card alone, without checking academic records, as insufficient where the bride’s age is in question, and it applies the Supreme Court’s caution against turning advocates’ chambers into venues for marriages. Pandey has denied the allegations, and the prosecution and the Bar Council’s proceedings, which the Court has directed, are yet to take place.
Matter: Writ petition challenging FIR registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the BNS
Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani, Allahabad High Court
Next Hearing: November 15
If a child is in need of help or protection, call CHILDLINE on 1098.