Lawyers take to playing priests in Chennai's fake wedding racket

CHENNAI: If marriages are made in heaven, fake and fraudulent marriages are being made in chambers of some advocates, it seems. The Madras high court has stumbled upon a thriving 'fake marriage cartel', in which advocates play priests and solemnize weddings in their chambers, no matter those getting married are present or not.
A division bench of Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash was stunned when it found out that more than 3,500 such 'weddings' were registered in just two registrar offices in Chennai in 2013.In most cases, advocates who specialized in such procedures conducted the marriage, issued certificates and then 'forced' registration officials to register the marriage without the physical presence of the 'newlyweds'.
The racket came to light after many habeas corpus petitions were filed by 'aggrieved grooms', who said came to court saying their 'wives' were in the illegal custody of their parents. On being summoned, many women girls told the court that though they knew the 'groom', no such marriage had taken place. One girl said a carpenter engaged by his father had registered her as his wife without her knowledge.
After a close scrutiny of 'marriage certificates' revealed a pattern, the judges ordered an inquiry. Superintendent of police (CB-CID) M V Jaya Gowri conducted a detailed probe, and came out with a startling report on how a group of advocates specialized in such 'fake weddings'.
Relying on CCTV footage, the officer showed the group scolded and threatened registration department officials in Royapuram and Chennai North to issue marriage registration certificates."Unlike Pandora, who unwittingly opened the box and let out the vermin, we consciously decided to open the can of worms keeping public interest in mind and to clean the Augean stables in the best interest of the Bar," the judges said. "We are really surprised as to how the registrar did not have any doubt when one lawyer by name Narasimhan registered 676 marriages in one year, excluding Saturday, Sunday and other government holidays," they said.
Another advocate, Neelanarayanan, conducted 382 marriages, while one Athitham solemnized 318. Advocate S Venkatesan conducted 277 marriages and one Alamelu solemnised 269 marriages.Noting that a group of advocates has taken solemnisation and registration of marriages as a special branch of practice, the judges remarked that even if it is clear that there is something foul in the marriage, officials cannot refuse registration, as they were abused and threatened with physical violence.

"We viewed CCTV footages recorded in their offices and we were indeed disheartened. We saw a lawyer hurling choicest abuses on the helpless registrar and even threatening him physically," they said.Warning lawyers of dangerous consequences, the judges said: "When the prestige of the legal profession falls, it does not fall alone, it takes with it the entire court system to the crematorium and on the funeral pyre, there will be dance of anarchy. A priest-cum-lawyer will also be liable for disciplinary action by the Bar council."
The judges held that marriages performed in secrecy in the chambers of advocates and bar association rooms will not amount to solemnization. No registration of marriage can be done under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009 without the physical presence of the couple before the registrar, except under special circumstances, they said. "Verification in absentia will be an empty formality and would serve no purpose. The registrar should be satisfied about the identity of the parties, which means that the presence of the parties is sine quo non (condition precedent)."
They further said: "If a complaint is made by a party to the marriage to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry against a priest-cum-advocate, the council shall take appropriate action in accordance with law." They also asked police to offer protection to registering authorities. The judges also quoted the legendary jurist Justice V R Krishna Iyer, who said: "The Bar is not a private guilt like that of barbers, butchers and candlestick makers, but by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public justice and pro bono publico service."