The Supreme Court rejected NCPCR’s challenge to Punjab and Haryana High Court rulings that upheld Muslim personal law, allowing girls to marry at 15. Justice Nagarathna stressed societal realities, saying criminalising young love could traumatise minors.
New Delhi: On August 19, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a special leave petition filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) that had challenged a 2022 Punjab and Haryana High Court order granting protection to a young Muslim couple.
The case involved a Muslim girl, who was then 16 years old, and her 30-year-old husband, Javed. The couple, along with their child, had sought protection from threats, including from family members.
The High Court had earlier ruled that under Muslim personal law, a girl who has attained puberty, or is over the age of 15, is competent to marry the person of her choice.
This was held valid irrespective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 or the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, both of which set stricter age requirements.
On Tuesday, the Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan questioned the very maintainability of the NCPCR’s appeal.
The Court emphasised that the child rights body was not a party to the original writ petition and had no authority to challenge an order of protection granted by the High Court.
The Bench pointedly asked the Commission’s counsel,
“You have no locus to challenge… if two minor children (i.e., Ashiana and her child) are protected by the High Court, how can you challenge such an order?”
The Court added,
“We fail to see how NCPCR can be aggrieved by protection granted to a minor…”
The Court also stressed that the High Court’s direction was limited to protecting the couple’s right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and no larger legal question could arise in that limited context.
Also Read: Prevention of Child Marriage in Rajasthan, HC Issued Directives
Appearing for the NCPCR, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti argued that while protection could continue, the “point of law” should remain open for consideration — namely, whether a 15-year-old girl has the legal and mental capacity to enter into a marriage under personal law.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. The Bench observed,
“If you want to argue that question.. then approach in the appropriate case.”
It further said,
“No question of law arises here… if the High Court, in exercise of its power to issue writs (under Article 226 of the Constitution) passed the order, how are you challenging it? The girl is living with her husband! And has a child. What is your problem?”
The Court made it clear that the issue before it was not about validating child marriage but only about whether two individuals — already married and living together — were entitled to protection of life and liberty.
The judgment has once again highlighted the long-standing conflict between Muslim personal law and secular statutes such as the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
While the latter sets the minimum age of marriage at 18 for girls and 21 for boys and is meant to apply uniformly across religions, Muslim personal law recognises puberty — usually considered to be 15 years — as the threshold of marriageable age for girls.
This legal and social conflict has repeatedly reached Indian courts, especially when cases involve criminal proceedings under POCSO.
Along with dismissing NCPCR’s plea in the present matter, the Supreme Court also dismissed three similar petitions filed in comparable cases. The Bench, in fact, admonished the child rights body for pursuing such matters.
“We want to keep these romantic cases separate… these we have to exclude,”
Justice BV Nagarathna said, urging the NCPCR to
“take up better causes.”
The Court underlined that romantic relationships involving teenagers close to the age of majority need to be viewed differently from serious criminal cases.
The Bench observed,
“Are you saying it is criminal to love? POCSO Act takes care of criminal cases… but there are romantic cases also, where teenagers on the verge of majority run away. Don’t read such cases the same as criminal cases. Have to differentiate,”
Justice Nagarathna also issued a strong caution against misusing POCSO provisions to harass young couples and to preserve family honour.
The judge remarked,
“… a girl elopes with a boy but her parents file POCSO case against him to hide elopement… this how honour killings are done!”
Case Title:
NCPCR v. Gulaam Deen and ors., and connected matter
Click Here to Read More Reports on Child Marriage
