No saptapadi, no bigamy: Calcutta High Court orders reinstatement of CRPF man fired over ‘second marriage’

In this case of CRPF man, the Calcutta High Court found a complete evidentiary vacuum with no marriage certificate. (Image enhanced using AI)

Bigamy charge collapses for want of proof

• At the heart of the ruling lies a fundamental legal principle- bigamy requires strict proof of a valid second marriage.
• The court underscored that under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage must be established through proof of essential ceremonies such as saptapadi (seven vows of Hindu marriage).
• In the absence of such proof, no valid marriage exists in law.
• Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, mandates that a Hindu marriage must be organised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party.
• It recognises traditional ceremonies, specifically the saptapadi as a binding act upon completion of the seventh step, ensuring the marriage is legal and legally recognised.

• In this case, the court found a complete evidentiary vacuum with no marriage certificate.
• No photographs or wedding records.
• No proof of rituals or ceremonies.
• No independent witnesses to the alleged marriage.
• The materials relied upon by the respondents, at best, indicate cohabitation or a relationship, but do not conclusively establish a valid marriage in the eyes of law, said the court.
• Neither the petitioner’s first wife nor the alleged second wife supported the case of bigamy, and neither was examined during the inquiry.

Hearsay cannot replace evidence

• In the present case, the disciplinary authority from the CRPF has primarily relied upon hearsay statements and police reports, without any independent corroboration or proof of the essential ingredients of a valid marriage.
• Such evidence, in the opinion of this court, falls short even of the standard required in departmental proceedings.
• The finding of guilt appears to have been recorded without proper appreciation of the legal requirement for establishing bigamy, rendering the conclusion perverse and unsustainable.

24-year service ended on unproven allegations

• The petitioner, a constable (general duty) in the CRPF with an unblemished service record of about 24 years, who joined the force in 1996, was removed from service on June 11, 2020 following a departmental inquiry.
• The core allegation: that he had contracted a second marriage in 2001 during the subsistence of his first marriage, violating Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules.

• The charge originated from a police report dated October 30, 2018 by the superintendent of police, Sepahijala (Tripura), based on statements of the alleged second wife’s parents and local village authorities claiming that the petitioner had eloped and married their daughter.
• A departmental inquiry found the charge proved, leading to his dismissal.
• Appeals and revisions filed between September 2020 and October 2021 were all rejected.

Social stigma, procedural lapses noted

• The court acknowledged the broader consequences of such allegations, noting that accusations of bigamy carry a “serious social stigma” and can disrupt familial relationships even if ultimately unproven.
• It is also pertinent to note that the very nature of the allegations forming the basis of the departmental proceedings, i.e., the charge of contracting a second marriage, has the potential to seriously impair the petitioner’s marital relationship.

• Such allegations, even if ultimately unsubstantiated, carry a significant social stigma and are likely to create mistrust, discord, and strain within the matrimonial household.
• The continuation of such proceedings and the findings recorded therein could have adversely affected the petitioner’s relationship with his spouse and family members, causing not only professional but also personal and emotional hardship.

Relief: Reinstatement after six years

• Finding both charges unsustainable, the court set aside the dismissal order dated June 11, 2020.
• The appellate order dated September 29, 2020.

• The revisional order dated March 5, 2021.
• The second appellate order dated October 6, 2021.
• The CRPF has been directed to reinstate the petitioner with full benefits within six weeks.

Court frames core legal questions

• The high court crystallised the dispute into three key issues.

1. Whether the alleged second marriage was proved in accordance with law;
2. Whether the disciplinary findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence; and
3. Whether the petitioner had been subjected to double punishment.

Second charge fails on double jeopardy

• The court also examined a separate allegation that the petitioner had fraudulently claimed duplicate hostel subsidies for his daughter in 2012.
• Here too, the disciplinary action failed scrutiny.
• The court noted that the petitioner had already been punished for this misconduct by an order dated August 27, 2014.

• Reiterating settled service law principles, the bench held that a second punishment for the same misconduct is impermissible.
• The petitioner has already been penalised for the alleged misconduct relating to hostel subsidy, the same cannot be made a ground for imposing a fresh and more severe punishment, the high court said.

Why this judgment matters

• The ruling sends a clear message on three fronts.

1. Proof of marriage is indispensable in bigamy allegations;
2. Departmental authorities cannot rely on conjecture or hearsay;
3. Double punishment in service law is impermissible.

• In doing so, the court reinforces evidentiary discipline in departmental proceedings, especially in cases involving serious personal allegations with lasting professional and social consequences.