Advocates can preside over 'self-respect marriages' in their personal capacity in Tamil Nadu: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that there was no blanket ban on advocates solemnising self-respect marriages in their personal capacity as per Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is an amendment inserted by the Tamil Nadu government. [Ilavarsan v. The Superintendent of Police]..In 1968, the State of Tamil Nadu legalised self-respect (Suyammariyathai) marriages that require consent of both parties who meet the minimum age requirement for marriage. This was with a view to do away with the need for upper-caste priests and elaborate rituals to complete wedding ceremonies.These marriages too, however, needed to be registered as per law..A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar today set aside a recent Madras High Court ruling which had held that lawyers cannot preside over such marriages in their offices or trade union offices and then issue marriage certificates.The apex court clarified that lawyers who are not acting in a professional capacity as officers of the court, but in their personal capacity of knowing the couple, can perform marriages under Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act."Advocates or lawyers have many capacities- one being Officers of the Court. Therefore, they should not, while acting as counsel or advocates or their capacity as advocates, undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages. That can well result in Advocates chambers or offices turning out to be matrimonial “establishment”- a consequence never intended- or perhaps never contemplated by law. However, in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses, their role as witnesses cannot be ruled out", the bench observed..The top court's ruling, in effect, paves way for self-respect marriages in Tamil Nadu to continue taking place in advocates' offices.Pertinently, the Bench overruled the Madras High Court's 2014 decision in S Balakrishnan Pandian, where it was held that marriages performed by the lawyers are invalid and that even self-respect marriages have to be solemnised publicly.The Bench noted that the said decision premised on the assumption that every marriage needs a public solemnisation or declaration."In the opinion of this Court, such a view is simplistic because often due to parental or pressure among kinship groups, or caste/community institutions, couples intending to enter into matrimony, may not be able to, for the reasons of such opposition- hold or give such a public declaration. Doing so would imperil their lives or could in the very least likely result in danger to their bodily integrity or at worst, a forceable or coerced separation of one from the other. It is not hard to visualize other pressures being brought to bear upon two individuals, who are otherwise adults and have exercised their freewill", the top court stated..In May this year, the Madras High Court had ordered the Tamil Nadu State Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against lawyers who preside over secret marriages in their offices or trade union offices.The High Court had observed that all marriages, including those performed under the 'self respect' provision must be "registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009 and the parties must physically appear before the Registrar."The said order came after a habeas corpus petition was filed by one Ilavarasan, who claimed that his wife had been forcibly detained by her parents, even though they had gotten married in the presence of advocates and office bearers of a trade union under Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act.The petitioner had also pointed out that the advocates had issued the couple a self-respect marriage certificate.The High Court held that the marriage was invalid, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court..Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had asked the Ramanathapuram District Legal Services Authority to record a statement of the wife, so that the Court could ascertain whether she was being forced to live with anyone. The report stated that she was currently forced to live with her parents, who had forcibly tried to marry her off at the age of 16, and that she wished to live with Ilavarasan..The habeas corpus petition filed by Ilavarasan was, therefore, allowed by the Supreme court..Ilavarasan, was represented by Advocates A Velan and Mrityunjay Pathak. Advocate Joseph Aristotle represented the Tamil Nadu government..[Read order]

Advocates can preside over 'self-respect marriages' in their personal capacity in Tamil Nadu: Supreme Court

Related Stories