CHENNAI: It is said marriages are made in Heaven. But much to the chagrin of the High Court of Madras, many weddings in the state were found to have been solemnised illegally inside the offices of advocates and the bar association.
The ‘marriage registration cartel’ as the court termed it, run by advocates, was discovered after the court received a number of habeas corpus petitions from young men, aged between 21 to 25, claiming that their spouses had been put under detention by their families. However, in most of these petitions, the girls informed the court that while they knew the men, they had never been married. The marriage certificate produced before the court to support the claim was obtained without their knowledge and consent, these women told the court.
In all such cases, the marriages were registered by just two marriage registrars —North Chennai and Royapuram. Growing suspicious over the series of habeas corpus petitions that were filed and disposed off in this fashion, the High Court ordered a thorough inquiry by the Crime Branch last December. Their report was nothing short of shocking.
“Unlike Pandora, who unwittingly opened the box and let out the vermins, we consciously decided to open the can of worms keeping public interest in mind and for endeavouring to clean the Augean stables in the best interest of the Bar,” said the Division Bench comprising Justices S Rajeswaran and P N Prakash.
The Crime Branch inquiry revealed that a group of advocates operating from near the court were involved in, what the court sarcastically named, a “new field of practise, namely ‘Solemnisation and Registration of Marriages’.”
The figures are astonishing. One lawyer named Narasimhan has conducted as many as 676 marriages in the 346 working days between January 1 and December 12, 2013. This includes 16 marriages on the Valentine’s Day alone. Second in line was one Neelanarayanan who solemnised 382 weddings, while the score for one Athitham was 318. Yet another advocate PS Loganathan conducted 205 marriages at the office of the George Town Bar Association.
In under a year, 3,496 marriages were solemnised by 168 advocates at just two marriage registrar offices. The court, much to its shock, found that there were many cases where the registrations were done without the presence of both the bride and groom.
No registration of marriage can be done under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act without the physical presence of the parties to the marriage before the registrar, except under special circumstances after recording the reasons. In the event of a matrimonial dispute, the Certificate of Solemnisation issued by advocates will not per se be proof of solemnisation of marriage, the court added.
The findings have startled not just the judges but even the senior members of the profession. In the counter affidavit, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry said that advocates are not entitled or permitted to conduct marriages in their office. “The marriages conducted by the advocates... in large numbers is not permitted under the Advocates Act or the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. [They] are liable to be proceeded under Sec.35 of Advocates Act,” the council informed the court.
No complaints have been received so far, it said, adding that action will be taken if any were filed.
The Madras High Court Advocates Association went a step ahead. Association president RC Paul Kanagaraj informed the court that the organisation would expel any member who uses the association premises for such solemnisation.
“In our view, such large-scale solemnisation and registration of marriages by advocates is a business and it is prohibited by law,” the bench noted, holding that “marriages performed in secrecy in the office of advocates and Bar association rooms cannot amount to solemnisation.”
When the judges asked how the registrars permitted such mass marriages by an advocate in a single day, the officials explained they were helpless as even genuine doubts would lead to fracas, abuse and intimidation. To corroborate this, the CCTV footage from registrars’ offices was submitted to the court. “We saw and heard a member of the noble profession hurling choicest abuses on the helpless registrar and even threatening him physically,” the court noted.
The court also found a pattern in these marriages. In April 2013, the report said, there were 341 marriages registered in this manner at those two offices. It went up to 383 in May and 384 in June.
The court said there was a spurt in the registration of marriages during April, May, June and July compared to other months. The reason behind this could be that it is the time when the academic year closes and “young lovers, while leaving college, register marriages pre-emptively.”
However, aware that declaring all such marriages void could be exploited by men who use it as a convenient excuse to get out of the nuptial knot, the court specifically noted that it can be used only by women to get liberated from sham marriages of such nature.
“It was a well-written judgment that is an eye-opener for us. An advocate’s office cannot become a place to conduct a marriage; he cannot act as a priest. Officials should not budge to pressure from advocates, and should instead take up the issue with the Bar Council or to their higher-ups,” said senior advocate and former assistant solicitor general, P Wilson.