Today, 18th April,The Calcutta High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to mandate Class XII education for Muslim girls before marriage. The court’s decision highlights debates on educational prerequisites for marriage among different communities. This ruling highlights the complexity of balancing educational and societal norms within legal frameworks. It also emphasizes the importance of respecting individual rights and choices in matters of education and marriage.
Calcutta: On Thursday, the Calcutta High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) urging State authorities to mandate that no Muslim girl can marry without passing Class XII. Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya‘s bench ruled that the representation to the Minister of School Education cannot be considered.
The Court stated,
“The matter pertains to a policy issue, and thus, no mandamus can be issued as requested. Therefore, the case is dismissed,”
Read Also:EXCLUSIVE| Abhijit Gangopadhyay | Govt. Notifies Resignation of Calcutta HC Judge
The petitioner, Nazia Elahi Khan, informed the Court that her representation to State authorities regarding the mandatory requirement for all Muslim girls to pass at least Class XII before marriage had not been addressed.
Khan mentioned in the plea,
“This matter impacts the wider public, especially the Islamic community.”
She argued that Muslim girls often considered “better off getting married” instead of pursuing education at least until Class XII, making it increasingly difficult for them to do so.
The petitioner claimed,
“The young girls from the Muslim Community are married off as soon as they reach puberty or adolescence, typically starting around the age of twelve,”
Read Also:[Breaking] Sandeshkhali Violence Case || Calcutta HC Directs CBI Probe
Khan lodged a representation on February 12 concerning this matter, asserting that no action had been taken by the State authorities since that time.
She stated,
“This lack of action has exacerbated the suffering of Muslim girls and further marginalized them,”
The PIL filed by Nazia Elahi Khan, who argued that State authorities hadn’t acted on her representation regarding this issue. Khan highlighted concerns about early marriages for Muslim girls, citing difficulties in pursuing education beyond a certain age due to societal norms.
The court ruled that this matter pertained to policy and couldn’t be enforced through a mandamus, thus rejecting the PIL.