Last Updated:
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan came down heavily on the child rights body for contesting the High Court’s order
Supreme Court of India | PTI Image
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) challenging a 2022 Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had upheld the marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl to a 30-year-old man and extended protection to the couple and their child.
The High Court had earlier ruled that under Muslim personal law, a girl who has attained puberty, or is above 15 years of age, is legally competent to marry a person of her choice, regardless of the minimum age set under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Recommended Stories
It also granted the couple, Javed and Ashiana, protection of life and liberty.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan came down heavily on the child rights body for contesting the High Court’s 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? We fail to see how NCPCR can be aggrieved by protection granted to a minor,” the bench observed.
The court questioned why the NCPCR was pursuing the matter when the girl was already living with her husband and child. “The girl is living with her husband! And has a child. What is your problem?” Justice Nagarathna asked.
Debate Over Marriage Laws
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for NCPCR, argued that while protection could continue, the broader legal issue should remain open — whether a girl aged 15 can marry under personal law when it conflicts with secular statutes like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, which sets 18 as the minimum marriageable age.
The bench, however, refused to entertain this contention, saying the case before them was limited to the issue of protection of life and liberty. “If you want to argue that question… then approach in the appropriate case,” the court said.
‘Romantic Cases’ vs Criminal Cases
The Supreme Court also dismissed three other similar petitions, warning the NCPCR against conflating consensual relationships with criminal conduct.
“We want to keep these romantic cases separate… these we have to exclude,” Justice Nagarathna said, urging the commission to “take up better causes.”
Emphasising the need for a nuanced view, the court said: “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 cautioned that misuse of POCSO provisions could push minors into distressing situations.
“A girl elopes with a boy, but her parents file a POCSO case against him to hide the elopement… this is how honour killings are done!” she remarked.
Loading comments…
Read More
 "Kim Jong Un denounces South Korea-US exercises as he reviews nuclear-ready warship")
