Supreme Court of India has clarified the role of advocates in solemnizing marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, putting an end to a contentious legal debate. Contrary to some media reports, the Court has not allowed lawyers to officiate marriages in their professional capacity but has underscored the necessity of maintaining a clear distinction between their roles as legal professionals and their private lives.

The Supreme Court, presided over by Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, overturned a 2014 Madras High Court judgment in the case of S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan v Inspector of Police, which had declared marriages performed by advocates under the Hindu Marriage Act as void. This previous decision had sparked controversy and legal ambiguity.

The apex court emphasized that lawyers should refrain from undertaking or volunteering to solemnize marriages while acting as counsel or advocates. Allowing advocates to perform such roles professionally could lead to their chambers becoming de facto matrimonial establishments, a consequence that was never intended by the law. However, the Supreme Court did acknowledge that advocates could serve as witnesses for marriages in their personal capacity, such as when they are friends or relatives of the intending spouses.

Justice Bhat stressed the importance of preventing the emergence of specialized "marriage counselors" within the legal profession. The Court underscored the need for advocates to maintain a clear boundary between their professional responsibilities and their personal interests.

The case at the heart of this ruling centered on the self-marriage system outlined in Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, which permits two Hindus to marry without traditional rituals or priestly solemnization. The Supreme Court's decision arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by an individual seeking the release of their partner from detention in the case of Ilavarsan v. The Superintendent of Police. The Madras High Court had refused to accept a self-respect marriage certificate issued by an advocate, following the precedent set by the Balakrishnan Pandiyan judgment. Additionally, the High Court directed the Bar Council to initiate disciplinary action against advocates issuing such certificates.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the viewpoint in the Balakrishnan Pandiyan case and cited its previous decision in Nagalingam v Shivgami, where it upheld Section 7A. The Court recognized that not all marriages require public solemnization or declaration and highlighted the potential risks faced by couples, including familial opposition and safety concerns. In such cases, enforcing a public declaration could endanger lives and potentially lead to forced separations.

The judgment reaffirmed the fundamental right to choose a life partner under Article 21 of the Constitution and declared the Balakrishnan Pandiyan view as incorrect. This ruling provides a more nuanced interpretation of marriage practices under the Hindu Marriage Act, ensuring legal clarity while respecting personal freedoms and choices.

Case Title: Ilvarasan vs. Superintendent of Police

Click here to read/download judgment