Reiterating that a notary public has no jurisdiction under the law to act as a Marriage Officer or execute documents giving the impression that a court marriage has been performed, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, comprising Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla, dropped suo motu proceedings against a Notary Public after accepting his unconditional apology, subject to depositing ₹2,00,000 for the welfare of the Bar and installing a display board clarifying that marriage documents cannot be notarized.
Background of the Case
The suo motu petition was registered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of a habeas corpus petition (W.P. No. 26269/2026), wherein a petitioner alleged that his wife was in the illegal detention of her father.
On July 13, 2026, the corpus appeared before the High Court and stated that the parties had visited the District Court in Datia for a court marriage. There, an advocate obtained their signatures on certain papers and informed them that their marriage stood performed.
Upon examining the case diary, the Court discovered a notarized document titled “विवाह वाद विवाह के पंजीयन बावत लिखतम” dated June 27, 2026, executed by Shri Raghvendra Samadhiya, Notary Public Datia.
Taking note of the Office Memorandum dated October 10, 2024, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell), along with previous High Court judgments, the Court held that a Notary cannot act as a Marriage Officer and has no authority to execute documents that mislead aspirants into believing a court marriage has taken place. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued to Shri Samadhiya.
Arguments of the Parties and Respondent’s Undertaking
Appearing before the Court on July 28, 2026, Shri Samadhiya accepted his mistake and acknowledged awareness of the Central Government’s Office Memorandum.
On August 12, 2026, a written reply and affidavit were submitted on behalf of the respondent through advocate Smt. Chanchal Sharma. Shri Samadhiya tendered an unconditional apology, clarifying that due to a misunderstanding he had notarized the document and giving a formal undertaking that he would never repeat such a mistake in the future.
Senior Advocate Shri Jitendra Sharma, assisted by Advocates Shri Ankur Maheshwari and Shri Satya Pal Solanki, prayed that the respondent be granted an opportunity to prove that his undertaking was sincere. Appearing in person, Shri Samadhiya submitted that to show his bona fides, he was willing to contribute ₹2,00,000 for the welfare of lawyers and would install a display board at his workplace stating that marriage affidavits cannot be notarized by a Notary.
Government Advocate Shri G.K. Agrawal appeared for the State.
Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
Evaluating the submissions and the deponent’s affidavit, the Division Bench observed:
“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.”
Taking into consideration his agreement to affix a warning board at his workplace and contribute ₹2,00,000 for the welfare of the Bar, the Bench concluded that another opportunity could be granted to him.
Decision of the Court
The High Court dropped the proceedings against Shri Samadhiya subject to the following directions:
- Before resuming work as a Notary, Shri Samadhiya must affix a board displaying that notarization of any document pertaining to the performance of marriage will not be done.
- Shri Samadhiya must deposit ₹2,00,000 in the Registry of the Court before resuming notary work (latest by August 17, 2026), which will be utilized by the High Court Bar Association, Gwalior, for the betterment of services in the Bar Association.
- Any effort to notarize documents prior to depositing the cost will be treated as defiance of the order, resulting in a permanent restraint from performing the duties of a Notary.
The Court recorded that Shri Samadhiya’s register, sealed on July 28, 2026, was returned to him after he made an endorsement recording the period during which his notary work remained suspended under court orders.
The High Court also expressed appreciation for the suggestion given by Senior Advocate Shri Jitendra Sharma, in his capacity as a member of the Bar Council of India, that a circular reproducing the Union Law Ministry’s Office Memorandum dated October 10, 2024, will be circulated to all Notaries to inform them of their jurisdictional limits and protect innocent aspirants seeking court marriages.
Case Details:
Case Title: In Re. Suo Moto Writ Petition 26269/2026 v. Raghvendra Samadhiya Notary Public Datia
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 28645 of 2026
Bench: Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla
Date: 12th August, 2026
