E-Paper
Allahabad HC orders probe into marriage certificates issued by Arya Samaj
The enquiry would be conducted as to whether the marriages in fact are being performed or it is just issuing empty certificates of marriage
The Allahabad high court had directed the SSP, Prayagraj, to get an investigation conducted into the functioning of Santosh Kumar Shastri, president of Arya Samaj Kydganj, Prayagraj, while issuing marriage certificates to couples (sometimes even when a girl is minor) who had married against the wishes of their parents.
“The enquiry would be conducted as to whether the marriages in fact are being performed or it is just issuing empty certificates of marriage,” the court said. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajnish Kumar passed the order on a petition filed by one Kapil Kumar claiming to have married a woman on the basis of a marriage certificate issued by Santosh Kumar Shastri claiming himself to be Pradhan of Arya Samaj Krishna Nagar, Prayagraj.
“This Court is flooded with the writ petitions in which such certificates are issued by Santosh Kumar Shastri and a day would not pass when some of such certificates issued by person concerned is not made the basis for issuance of a marriage certificate,” the court said.
The bench directed Shastri to produce registers of all the marriages which have been solemnized by him over the last five years. Saying it’s a serious matter which required thorough investigation, the court observed, “The possibility of an organized racket working for extraneous reasons cannot be ruled out, in which involvement/assistance of others are possible.
“The manner in which persons from not only State of Uttar Pradesh but from the other States also are being issued marriage certificates, we are prima facie of the opinion that the purpose of issuing such certificate is merely to facilitate run away boys and girls to lend legitimacy to their claim without determining their identity and without ascertaining their age etc., with the sole purpose of securing protection for them”, observed the bench while fixing August 8 as the next date of hearing in the case. The bench issued the directives on May 30 but the order came into public domain on Friday.
