Allahabad High Court: Advocate Prosecution Ordered for Minor Marriage

• The Allahabad High Court ordered criminal prosecution against advocate Prakash Pandey (Rangesh) for solemnizing a minor's marriage.
• The advocate allegedly conducted the marriage in his chamber, issued a forged certificate, and accepted Rs 15,000.
• The ceremony lacked the essential Saptapadi ritual, which is crucial for a valid Hindu marriage.
• The court also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to consider cancelling the advocate's license.
• This ruling underscores the severe professional and criminal liability for advocates involved in facilitating child marriages.

This ruling serves as a critical reminder for advocates regarding severe professional and criminal liability for facilitating illegal acts like child marriage, emphasizing the strict requirements for valid Hindu marriages, including the essential Saptapadi ceremony.

The Allahabad High Court has mandated the initiation of criminal prosecution against an advocate, Prakash Pandey (Rangesh), following allegations of his involvement in solemnizing a minor girl's marriage. The court's directive specifically instructs the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to take appropriate action to pursue criminal charges against the lawyer. This significant order underscores the judiciary's firm stance against legal professionals who allegedly facilitate illegal activities.

In addition to criminal proceedings, the High Court has also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to undertake suitable disciplinary measures against Pandey. These actions are to include a thorough review of his conduct and consideration for the cancellation of his license to practice law. The allegations against the advocate include conducting the marriage ceremony within his chamber at the district court complex in Kanpur, issuing a forged marriage certificate, and accepting a payment of Rs 15,000 for these services.

The case came to the High Court's attention through a petition filed by the couple, seeking to quash an FIR. This FIR, registered at Makhi police station in Unnao, cited sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which correspond to sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to kidnapping and inducing a woman to compel her marriage. The court's subsequent investigation revealed the advocate's alleged role in the illicit union.

The advocate, Prakash Pandey (Rangesh), who also served as the Pradhan of Arya Samaj Shivkatra/Katra in Kanpur Nagar, reportedly encountered the young couple at the entrance of the District Court, where he provided them with his visiting card. Despite the girl's education certificate indicating her date of birth as October 16, 2008, and her Aadhaar card showing April 18, 2007, suggesting she was a minor, the advocate proceeded to solemnize the marriage in his chamber without verifying her academic records. The ceremony involved the exchange of garlands and the application of vermilion on the girl's head, for which the boy paid Rs 15,000.

Crucially, the essential Saptapadi ritual, a fundamental custom for a Hindu marriage, was not performed during the ceremony. On July 30, 2026, the state counsel informed the High Court that the girl was a minor and that the advocate, as President of the Arya Samaj's Katra branch, had performed the marriage, thereby constituting a child marriage. This prompted the court to summon the advocate and the Secretary of the Arya Samaj to provide explanations and records.

During subsequent proceedings on August 7, the Arya Samaj Secretary acknowledged significant irregularities within some of the institution's branches since his election and committed to formulating new guidelines. Advocate Pandey, however, denied any knowledge of the petitioners, denied conducting their marriage, and disavowed issuing any certificate to them. He presented an alternative marriage certificate bearing the same serial number as the petitioners' document, asserting that their certificate was a forgery. The High Court then ordered an inquiry by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to ascertain whether the marriage had indeed taken place in a chamber at the district court, an inquiry during which the boy, while in custody, independently identified the specific location.

The absence of the Saptapadi ceremony in the alleged marriage is a critical legal point, as it is considered an indispensable custom for the validity of a Hindu marriage. This requirement has been reinforced by the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, which unequivocally stated that mere registration under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not legitimize a marriage if the essential ceremonies, such as Saptapadi, were not properly performed. Furthermore, the Arya Samaj's own established rules and principles for performing the Vivah Sanskar also stipulate Saptapadi as a sacrosanct element of the marriage.

This ruling serves as a critical reminder for advocates regarding severe professional and criminal liability for facilitating illegal acts like child marriage, emphasizing the strict requirements for valid Hindu marriages, including the essential Saptapadi ceremony. The Allahabad High Court's decisive action against Prakash Pandey (Rangesh) highlights the serious consequences, including criminal action and potential license cancellation by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, that await legal professionals who deviate from ethical conduct and legal mandates. Lawyers must ensure meticulous adherence to legal procedures and ethical conduct to avoid license cancellation and prosecution, particularly when dealing with sensitive matters like marriage solemnization and age verification.

This ruling serves as a critical reminder for advocates regarding severe professional and criminal liability for facilitating illegal acts like child marriage, emphasizing the strict requirements for valid Hindu marriages, including the essential Saptapadi ceremony. Lawyers must ensure meticulous adherence to legal procedures and ethical conduct to avoid license cancellation and prosecution.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources.