The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 19) declined to entertain a Special Leave Petition filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) against a 2022 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which recognised the validity of the marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl with a Muslim man and granted the couple protection from threats.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan said the child rights body had no locus standi in the matter. “NCPCR has no locus to challenge such an order… if two minor children are protected by the High Court, how can NCPCR challenge such an order… It is strange that the NCPCR, which is for protecting the children, has challenged such an order,” the bench observed, according to Live Law.
The judges dismissed the petition outright, refusing the request of the Commission’s counsel to keep the legal question open.
SC Bench Questions NCPCR’s Intervention
The court asked why the NCPCR should be contesting a High Court order that merely extended protection to the life and liberty of the couple. “We fail to see how NCPCR can be aggrieved by such an order. If the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, seeks to extend protection to two individuals, the NCPCR has no locus standi to challenge such an order. Dismissed,” the bench stated in its order.
The Supreme Court also rejected three other petitions filed by the NCPCR challenging similar High Court rulings.
Arguments Over Marriageable Age
NCPCR’s counsel had argued that the matter raised an important legal question — whether a girl below 18 could enter into a valid marriage under personal law. They contended that the High Court’s decision effectively permitted child marriage, running contrary to the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), both of which set 18 as the threshold age for consent.
However, Justice Nagarathna clarified that no such question of law arose in this particular case. “No question of law arises, you challenge in an appropriate case please,” she remarked. She further stressed that relationships involving teenagers close to majority should not always be equated with criminal offences.
“There is POCSO Act, which takes care of the penal cases, but there are romantic cases also where teenagers on the verge of majority run away, where there are genuine romantic cases, they want to get married, don’t read such cases the same as criminal cases. We have to differentiate between criminal cases and this,” Justice Nagarathna said, as quoted by Live Law.
She added, “Look at the trauma the girl undergoes if she loves a boy and he is sent to jail, because her parents would file a POCSO case to cover the elopement.”
High Court’s Earlier Observations
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its 2022 judgment, had granted protection to the couple after the Muslim man claimed his girlfriend was being illegally confined by her family. The court had noted that, as per Muslim Personal Law, a girl who has attained puberty is considered of marriageable age. Citing Article 195 of Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, the High Court said that a Muslim girl above 16 was competent to enter into a marriage contract.
NHRC Member Raises Alarm: ‘It’s Paedophilia, Not A Romantic Relationship’
Following Tuesday’s dismissal, NCPCR chairperson Priyank Kanoongo expressed concern over the scope for exploitation of minor girls, labelling the verdict as ‘dangerous’. In remarks to ANI, he said, “…There was a decision of the HC which stated that the marriage of a minor girl can be justified because she is Muslim… We pleaded in the SC, saying that if one HC has delivered such a decision, then others might also do it. If this happens, we won’t be able to save the girls’ lives… For the larger benefit of the nation’s children, we went to SC and said that we won’t be able to stop the rape cases of girls… Today, in the absence of the senior advocates, a one-sided hearing was held…”
#WATCH | Delhi: On Supreme Court dismisses NCPCR’s plea challenging Punjab & Haryana HC ruling that 16-year old Muslim girls can marry under personal law, Member of the National Human Rights Commission Priyank Kanoongo says, “…There was a decision of the HC which stated that… pic.twitter.com/oaUxf1hwck
— ANI (@ANI) August 19, 2025
“My fear is that it will be difficult to protect the children in the future, as one rule made by the Parliament of India states that, according to the global standard, the age of getting into sexual relationships should be 18 years. Now, lowering that age to 16 years old is not giving them the freedom to get into sexual relationships, but this gives freedom to the exploiters to exploit,” he added.
Kanoongo emphasised that the “perpetrator” in the present case is above 18 years of age and has “sexually exploited” a minor: “It is paedophilia and not a romantic relationship.”
