Notary who wrongly notarised a “court marriage” document allowed to resume work after ₹2 lakh Bar contribution and warning board

The High Court registered the matter suo motu under Article 226 of the Constitution in the course of hearing W.P. No. 26269 of 2026, a habeas corpus petition alleging the illegal detention of the petitioner’s wife.

During those proceedings, the corpus stated that she and the boy had gone to the District Court, Datia, where an advocate obtained their signatures on documents and represented that their marriage had been performed.

The case diary contained a document titled “विवाह के पंजीयन बाबत लिखतम,” which had been notarised by Raghvendra Samadhiya, Notary Public, Datia.

The Court held that a notary has no jurisdiction to act as a Marriage Officer or to execute documents creating the impression that a court marriage had been performed, and issued notice to the notary.

The respondent appeared on 28 July 2026, admitted the mistake, and acknowledged that he had no authority to act as a Marriage Officer.

In his written reply and affidavit, he tendered an unconditional apology and undertook not to repeat the conduct.

He further agreed to display a board stating that marriage-related documents could not be notarised and offered to contribute ₹2,00,000 towards the welfare of the Bar.

1. Whether a Notary Public has jurisdiction to notarise or execute a document relating to the performance or registration of a marriage in a manner suggesting that a court marriage has been solemnised.

2. Whether the proceedings against the respondent should be continued or dropped after his admission, unconditional apology, undertaking, and proposed corrective measures.

3. Whether conditions should be imposed before permitting the respondent to resume notarial work.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution as the source of its suo motu jurisdiction.

It relied on the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell), Office Memorandum dated 10 October 2024, together with earlier judgments of the High Court, for the principle that a Notary Public is neither a Marriage Officer nor a marriage-registration authority and cannot execute or notarise documents relating to the performance or registration of marriage, or documents relating to divorce, in violation of the limits of notarial jurisdiction.

The Court also applied the remedial principle that an admitted mistake may be forgiven where the person acknowledges the wrong, gives a genuine undertaking, and adopts safeguards against repetition, while recognising that the sincerity of the undertaking would ultimately be tested by future conduct.

The respondent’s notarisation of the marriage-related document created the false impression that the parties’ court marriage had been completed, despite the settled limitation that a notary cannot perform the functions of a Marriage Officer.

However, the respondent admitted the mistake both when he first appeared and in his written affidavit, tendered an unconditional apology, and expressly undertook not to repeat the conduct.

The Court considered the proposed display board and the respondent’s undertaking to deposit ₹2,00,000 as evidence of corrective intent.

Since the genuineness of the undertaking could not be conclusively determined in the present proceedings and could instead be assessed through future conduct, the Court granted him one further opportunity, subject to safeguards designed to prevent recurrence.

Before resuming notarial work, he was directed to display a board clearly stating that documents relating to the performance of marriage would not be notarised and to deposit ₹2,00,000 with the Registry by 17 August 2026; the amount was to be used by the High Court Bar Association, Gwalior, for improving Bar services.

Any attempt to perform notarial work before depositing the amount would constitute defiance of the order and would expose him to permanent restraint from acting as a Notary.

The sealed notarial register was returned after an endorsement recording the period of suspension.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and the Court noted with appreciation the proposal to circulate the 10 October 2024 Office Memorandum among Notaries.