Advocates Should Not Solemnise 'Self-Respect Marriages' In Professional Capacity But Can Act As Witnesses In Private Capacity : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today ruled that advocates, being officers of the court, should abstain from undertaking or volunteering to solemnize 'self-respect marriages' as per Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (as applicable to State of Tamil Nadu) in their professional capacity. However, they may stand as witnesses for marriages in their personal capacities as friends or relatives.

A bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar made these significant observations while overruling the 2014 Madras High Court judgment in S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan v Inspector of Police which held that marriages performed by the advocates are not valid and that Suyammariyathai marriage (self-respect marriage) cannot be solemnised in secrecy.

"The Court also notices the observations made by the impugned order, with respect to the role of the advocates. The concerns voiced by the High Court are not entirely unfounded. 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 case before the Supreme Court was based on the self-marriage system as per Section 7A, which was inserted in the Hindu Marriage Act by a Tamil Nadu Amendment. According to this Section, two Hindus can marry without following rituals or without solemnization by a priest by declaring marriage in the presence of their friends or relatives or other persons.

The appeal before the Supreme Court arose out of judgment of the Madras High Court which dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking the release of his partner from detention by her family (Ilavarsan v. The Superintendent of Police). The High Court, following the Balakrishnan Pandiyan judgment, refused to accept the self-respect marriage certificate issued by an advocate and dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The High Court also directed the Bar Council to initiate disciplinary action against advocates issuing such certificates.

Considering the special leave petition, a bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar disagreed with the view expressed in Balakrishnan Pandiyan which was followed in Ilavarasan.

The Court further said that the observations made by the High Court concerning the role of Advocates "may not have been warranted". At the same time, it said that some concerns are not entirely unfounded.

 While acknowledging the multifaceted roles lawyers play in society, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of maintaining a clear demarcation between an advocate's professional responsibilities and their private interests.