MP High Court Accepts Notary’s Apology For Notarizing Marriage Deed; BCI To Inform Notaries Of Their Jurisdictional Limitations
The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a petition registered in Suo Moto exercise of its power under Article 226 involving a Notary's power.
Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Justice Anuradha Shukla, Madhya Pradesh HC
While dealing with a contempt petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has accepted an apology of a Notary for notarising a marriage document and also welcomed the suggestion provided by a Senior Advocate and member of the Bar Council of India (BCI) that a letter would be circulated by the BCI to all Notaries reproducing the office memorandum by which Notaries have been restrained from executing marriage/divorce deeds.
The High Court was considering a petition registered by the High Court in a suo moto exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla held, “Accordingly, by accepting his apology, it is directed that before resuming the work of notary, Shri Samadhiya shall affix a board displaying that notarization of any document pertaining to performance of marriage will not be done.”
“It is submitted by Shri Jitendra Sharma, who is also a member of Bar Council of India, that a letter will also be circulated to all Notaries reproducing the office memorandum issued by Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell) on 10.10.2024, by which Notaries have been restrained from executing marriage/divorce deeds so that every Notary can be informed about the limitations on their jurisdiction and every Notary will be requested that they should not execute any document in utter violation of office memorandum issued by Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell). The gesture shown by Bar Council of India is in consonance with law and for the protection of innocent aspirants who go to the Court under the hope and belief that they will get the court marriage performed”, it stated.
Factual Background
A writ petition was filed in the nature of habeas corpus alleging that the wife of the petitioner was in illegal detention of the third Respondent, who was the father of the corpus. The corpus appeared before the Court and made a statement that they went to the District Court, Datia, for court marriage and there one Advocate obtained their signatures on certain papers and informed them that their marriage had been performed. The case diary was produced, and it was found that one document notarised by the Notary Public was present in the case diary. The High Court, after taking note of the office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell), as well as various cases, held that a Notary has no jurisdiction to execute any document to give a false impression in the mind of aspirants that a court marriage has been performed, and the Notary cannot act as Marriage Officer.
A notice was issued to the Notary, who accepted his mistake and stated that by mistake, a document pertaining to the marriage of the corpus was executed. It was also stated that he was aware of the office memorandum issued by the Central Government and he had no authority to act as Marriage Officer. The Notary prayed that he be pardoned for the illegal act which he had committed and also gave an undertaking that he would never repeat such a mistake in future.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, stated, “Committing a mistake is not a sin, but repeating the same will be a sin. There should not be any hatred towards a sinner, but hatred should be for the sin. Shri Samadhiya has accepted his mistake not only today but on 28.07.2026 also. Whether that acceptance is from the bottom of his heart or it is superficial cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings because that can be ascertained from his future conduct.”
Considering that the Notary had also agreed to affix a display board at the place of his working that notarization of any marriage document is forbidden in law and had also agreed to contribute Rs 2 lakh for the welfare of the Bar, the Bench held that another opportunity could be given to him.
Thus, accepting his apology, the Bench mentioned, “Shri Samadhiya also undertakes to deposit the cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the Registry of this Court before resumption of his notary work, i.e., latest by Monday (17.08.2026). The cost deposited by Shri Raghvendra Samadhiya will be utilized by the High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for the betterment of services in the Bar Association.”
The Bench also clarified that any effort to notarise any document prior to deposit of cost would be treated as utter defiance of the order and he would be permanently restrained from performing the duty of the Notary. The Bench ordered dropping of proceedings initiated against Notary Samadhiya.
Senior Advocate Jitendra Sharma, who is also a member of the Bar Council of India, brought it to the Court’s notice that every Notary would be informed about the limitations on their jurisdiction. Accepting such a suggestion, the Bench disposed of the Petition.
Cause Title: In Re. Suo Moto Writ Petition 26269/2026 v. Raghvendra Samadhiya, Notary Public Datia (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:24396)
Appearance
Appellant: Govt. Advocate G.K. Agrawal
Respondent: Senior Advocate Jitendra Sharma, Advocate Ankur Maheshwari, Advocates Satya Pal Solank