ILAVARASAN versus THE SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 325 · Decided: 28-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 325 : 2023 INSC 813
325
CASE DETAILS
ILAVARASAN
v.
THE SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 002752-002752 of 2023))
AUGUST 28, 2023 
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Issue arose as regards the conduct of 
advocates as to whether they are capable of certifying self respect marriages 
u/s. 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and whether the Suyammariyathai 
marriage-self-respect marriage can be solemnised in secrecy.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 7A (as amended and applicable 
in Tamil Nadu) – Special provision regarding suyamariyathai and 
seerthiruththa marriages-self respect marriages – Advocates, if cabable 
of certifying marriages u/s. 7A – Appellant married a girl in accordance 
with s. 7A and the same was solemnized under the aegis of Advocates 
and other social workers – Allegation that the girl was detained or 
restrained against her will by her parents – Habeas corpus petition by 
the appellant – Dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: 
Held: It is erroneus to hold that such marriage requires a public 
declaration and that the marriage conducted in secrecy with few strangers 
around, be it Suyammariyathai form, would not amount to solemnization, u/
ss. 7 and 7-A – To superimpose the condition of a public declaration, which is 
absent in s. 7A, would narrow the wide import of the statue as also would be 
violative of the rights u/Art. 21 – Furthermore, it cannot be said that advocates 
are incapabe of certifying marriage, however, advocates being oﬃ  cers of 
the Court, should not undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages but can 
act as witness – On facts, since the girl wishes to reside with the appellant 
of own freewill, thus, issuance of directon to the respondents to ensure that 
she joins the appellant – Constitution of India – Art. 21. [Para 6, 8]
326 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
Judicial Notice – Role of advocates in solemnizing marriages:
Held: Advocates or lawyers have many capacities-one being oﬃ  cers of 
the Court, thus should not, while acting as counsel or advocates, undertake 
or volunteer to solemnize marriages – It would result in advocates chambers 
or oﬃ  ces turning out to be matrimonial establishment – However, in their 
capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses, they can act as 
witness. [Para 9]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan v. Inspector of Police 2014 (7) MadLJ 
651 – disapproved.
S. Nagalingam v. Shivgami (2001) 7 SCC 487; Lata Singh v. State of 
UP, (2006) 5 SCC 475; Shaﬁ n Jahan v. Asokan KM, (2018) 16 SCC 368; 
Laxmibai Chandaragi B. v. The State of Karnataka (2021) 3 SCC 360 – 
referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2752 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2023 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras at Madurai in HCPMD No.560 of 2023.
Appearances:
A Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Mritunjay Pathak, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, with their consent. 
2. The brief facts are that the appellant had preferred a habeas corpus 
proceeding, alleging that he had married Mathithra in accordance with 
327
Section 7A of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same was solemnized 
under the aegis of Advocates and other social workers. He had alleged that 
she had been forcibly taken away, coerced into marrying her maternal uncle, 
after which she was restrained at the behest of her parents. The appellant 
alleged that Mathithra was detained or restrained against her will. The High 
Court dismissed the petition and recorded comments adverse to the conduct 
of Advocates, stating that they are incapable of certifying marriages under 
Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (as amended and applicable 
in Tamil Nadu). The appellant, aggrieved by the impugned order, has 
approached this Court. 
3. This Court had by its order dated 04.08.2023 directed that the 
concerned District Legal Services Authority to facilitate recording the 
statement of the alleged victim, Mathithra. Pursuant to the directions, the 
concerned Legal Services Authority and the District Judge, Ramanathapuram 
facilitated the process. The report furnished by the Secretary, District Legal 
Services Authority, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.