In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) challenging a 2022 Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that granted protection to a 16-year-old Muslim girl, Ashiana, her husband Javed, and their child.
The apex court affirmed the High Court’s order, which recognized the girl’s right to marry under Muslim personal law upon reaching puberty, despite objections based on the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The decision sparks renewed debate over the interplay between personal laws and secular legislation in India.
Affirming Personal Law and Protection Rights
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, upheld the High Court’s 2022 verdict, which declared that a Muslim girl who has attained puberty, typically at age 15, is competent to marry her chosen partner under Muslim personal law, irrespective of POCSO provisions.
The High Court had also ensured the safety of Ashiana, Javed, and their child, granting them “protection of life and liberty” from potential threats, including from family members. The NCPCR, however, contested this, arguing that the marriage violated laws like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, which sets the minimum marriage age at 18 for all Indians.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court reserves order in stray dogs case, some relief in sight as Bench raps civic bodies for picking up animals
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court sharply questioned the NCPCR’s standing to challenge the protective order. “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 bench asked.
The Supreme Court said, “We fail to see how NCPCR can be aggrieved by protection granted to a minor…” Rejecting the NCPCR’s plea to debate the legal capacity of a 15-year-old to marry, the court emphasized, “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 NDTV quoted the top court as saying.
Distinguishing Romantic Cases from Criminal Ones
The Supreme Court also addressed broader concerns about the application of laws like POCSO in cases involving consensual relationships. Dismissing three similar petitions, the bench, led by Justice Nagarathna, urged the NCPCR to focus on more pressing issues.
“We want to keep these romantic cases separate… these we have to exclude,” she said, adding, “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.”
ALSO READ: Amid Bihar SIR row, Supreme Court asks EC to show reason for deleting 65 lakh names from voter list
The court highlighted the risks of misapplying legal frameworks, warning against actions that could lead to severe consequences like honor killings. “… a girl elopes with a boy but her parents file POCSO case against him to hide elopement… this how honour killings are done!” Justice Nagarathna remarked, stressing the need to avoid traumatizing minors in consensual relationships nearing the age of majority.
The ruling underscores the tension between Muslim personal law, which permits marriage upon puberty, and secular laws like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
While the latter mandates a minimum age of 18, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the validity of personal law in specific contexts, prioritizing the couple’s safety and autonomy.
