1. Petition under Article 32 seeking guidelines for effective enforcement of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 due to the alarming prevalence of child marriages. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 945
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1234 of 2017
Decided On : 18-10-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mugdha, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khwaja, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Gen/Sr. Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Amish Tandon, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Dora, Adv. Ms. Ria Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Abbas B, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mugdha, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khwaja, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Gen/Sr. Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Amish Tandon, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Dora, Adv. Ms. Ria Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Abbas B, Adv.
Important Points
Child marriage violates fundamental rights under Article 21, including choice, autonomy, health, and education, obligating the state to prioritize prevention over penalization through robust legal and community measures.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights and Child Protection
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit: S.199(c)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: S.63(d)(vi)
CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT: S.12, S.2(a)
COMMISSIONS FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS ACT: S.17, S.24, S.25, S.26(b), S.3
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.21, Art.32, Art.38(2), Art.51
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.42
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.375, S.376
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Art.10(1)
JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT: S.105, S.106, S.107, S.2(14)(xii)
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT: S.12(c)
PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT: S.14, S.10, S.13, S.15, S.16, S.2(a), S.3, S.4, S.5, S.6, S.9
RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT: S.12
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: Art.16(2)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: S.63(d)(vi)
CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT: S.12, S.2(a)
COMMISSIONS FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS ACT: S.17, S.24, S.25, S.26(b), S.3
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.21, Art.32, Art.38(2), Art.51
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.42
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.375, S.376
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Art.10(1)
JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT: S.105, S.106, S.107, S.2(14)(xii)
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT: S.12(c)
PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT: S.14, S.10, S.13, S.15, S.16, S.2(a), S.3, S.4, S.5, S.6, S.9
RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT: S.12
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: Art.16(2)
Headnote
(A) Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Sections 2(a), 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 2(d) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 2(14) - Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 - Sections 3, 13, 17, 24, 25 - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 12(c) - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), 21, 21-A, 39(f), 51 - International Instruments including Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Article 16(2)), and Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 1, 19, 28, 29, 34) - Focus on prohibition and prevention of child marriage, ensuring child rights, and state obligations under domestic and international law.
(B) Key Legal Principles: The court emphasized that child marriage violates fundamental rights under Article 21, including rights to choice, autonomy, health, education, and childhood development, stating 'child marriage deprives children of their agency, autonomy and right to fully develop and enjoy their childhood' (Para 173). It also recognized the state’s duty to prevent child marriage as part of constitutional and international obligations, noting 'the State has a concrete, enforceable obligation to prevent and eliminate child marriage' (Para 198).
(C) Intersectional Approach: The judgment advocates for an intersectional approach to address overlapping vulnerabilities like gender, caste, and socio-economic status, asserting 'addressing child marriage requires an intersectional approach that acknowledges the overlapping vulnerabilities experienced by children' (Para 208).
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed under Article 32 by an NGO addressing the alarming rate of child marriages despite the enactment of the 2006 Act, seeking stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of dedicated officers, and support systems for child brides, as noted in 'the Petitioner’s primary grievance is that despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006, the rate of child marriages in India is alarming' (Para 1).
Findings of Court:
The court found that child marriage constitutes a grave violation of constitutional rights and international norms, necessitating robust preventive measures over mere penalization, and issued comprehensive guidelines for enforcement, awareness, and community involvement, stating 'the orientation of these guidelines is to prioritise prevention before protection and protection before penalisation' (Para 210).
Issues: The main issues addressed include the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages and the need for effective enforcement mechanisms, as framed by the court in 'the Petitioner seeks to address the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages' (Para 1).
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that child marriage infringes on fundamental rights to life, liberty, and education under Article 21, and the state must prioritize prevention through legal, educational, and community measures, emphasizing 'the right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is violated by the commission of child marriage' (Para 171).
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with detailed guidelines for implementation (Para 218).
(B) Key Legal Principles: The court emphasized that child marriage violates fundamental rights under Article 21, including rights to choice, autonomy, health, education, and childhood development, stating 'child marriage deprives children of their agency, autonomy and right to fully develop and enjoy their childhood' (Para 173). It also recognized the state’s duty to prevent child marriage as part of constitutional and international obligations, noting 'the State has a concrete, enforceable obligation to prevent and eliminate child marriage' (Para 198).
(C) Intersectional Approach: The judgment advocates for an intersectional approach to address overlapping vulnerabilities like gender, caste, and socio-economic status, asserting 'addressing child marriage requires an intersectional approach that acknowledges the overlapping vulnerabilities experienced by children' (Para 208).
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed under Article 32 by an NGO addressing the alarming rate of child marriages despite the enactment of the 2006 Act, seeking stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of dedicated officers, and support systems for child brides, as noted in 'the Petitioner’s primary grievance is that despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006, the rate of child marriages in India is alarming' (Para 1).
Findings of Court:
The court found that child marriage constitutes a grave violation of constitutional rights and international norms, necessitating robust preventive measures over mere penalization, and issued comprehensive guidelines for enforcement, awareness, and community involvement, stating 'the orientation of these guidelines is to prioritise prevention before protection and protection before penalisation' (Para 210).
Issues: The main issues addressed include the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages and the need for effective enforcement mechanisms, as framed by the court in 'the Petitioner seeks to address the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages' (Para 1).
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that child marriage infringes on fundamental rights to life, liberty, and education under Article 21, and the state must prioritize prevention through legal, educational, and community measures, emphasizing 'the right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is violated by the commission of child marriage' (Para 171).
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with detailed guidelines for implementation (Para 218).
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - Child marriage violates fundamental rights under Article 21, including choice, autonomy, health, education, and childhood development (!) (!) . - The state has a concrete, enforceable obligation to prevent and eliminate child marriage through legal, educational, and community measures (!) (!) . - Effective implementation requires dedicated, exclusive Child Marriage Prohibition Officers with adequate resources and accountability mechanisms (!) (!) . - Enforcement must prioritize prevention over protection and penalization, with proactive judicial measures such as injunctions and suo motu action (!) (!) . - An intersectional approach is necessary to address overlapping vulnerabilities of gender, caste, socio-economic status, and geography (!) (!) . - The state must ensure access to comprehensive sexuality education, accurate information, and age-appropriate curricula to empower children (!) (!) . - Special protections and support systems are required for girls at risk, including care plans, peer support, and compensation schemes (!) (!) . - International human rights norms, including CEDAW and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, set binding standards that India must uphold (!) (!) . - Monitoring, data collection, and transparent reporting are essential to assess progress and ensure compliance (!) (!) . - Adequate and dedicated annual funding must be allocated for awareness, training, rehabilitation, and survivor support (!) (!) .
What are the state obligations to prevent and eliminate child marriage under domestic and international law?
How to effectively implement the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 through enforcement mechanisms and institutional structures?
What are the core rights of children at risk of or subjected to child marriage, including autonomy, health, education, and development?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- family law
- crime and sentencing
- administrative law
- international law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges failure in enforcement and overburdened officers; Union cites societal pressures and existing government schemes to curb the practice. (Para 9 , 11 )
3. Child marriage violates rights to autonomy, health, and education; effectiveness of PCMA is hindered by appointing officers with multifarious duties. (Para 12 , 75 , 171 )
4. State's positive obligation under Article 21 and international norms requires dedicated enforcement mechanisms and a rights-based approach to eliminate child marriage. (Para 78 , 198 , 206 )
5. Issued comprehensive guidelines for PCMA implementation, mandating exclusive CMPOs, specialized police units, and integrated sexuality education in schools. (Para 210 , 211 )
6. Can an officer with other responsibilities be appointed as a Child Marriage Prohibition Officer (CMPO)?
No. To ensure effectiveness, no officer with other responsibilities shall be appointed as the CMPO. States must appoint exclusive CMPOs in each district to avoid diluting the focus on child marriage prevention. (Para 75 , 78 )
7. What is the legal status of a child marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006?
Child marriages are generally voidable at the option of the contracting party who was a child. However, marriages involving force, deceit, or trafficking are void ab initio. (Para 44 , 63 )
8. Does the right to education include sexuality education for children?
Yes. The right to childhood and education encompasses the right to be informed about sexual and reproductive health to prevent exploitation and ensure healthy development. (Para 158 , 159 , 195 )
9. What is the State's legal obligation regarding the prevention of child marriage?
The State acts as parens patriae, bearing a positive obligation under Article 21 and international treaties to protect children's rights, nurture their development, and eliminate socio-economic inequalities driving child marriage. (Para 198 , 204 , 205 , 206 )
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
| Table of Contents |
| I. Background |
| II. Procedural history and submissions |
| III. A vicious cycle: socio-economic determinants and effects of child marriage |
| IV. A national reckoning: child marriage in India |
| A. The age of consent |
| i. Rukhmabai’s case |
| ii. Phulmoni Dasi’s case |
| B. Regulating the age of marriage |
| C. The Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 |
| V. Contemporary legal framework |
| A. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 |
| i. Recourse to the wedded: maintenance, residence and custody |
| ii. Penalties for child marriage |
| iii. Preventive measures under the PCMA |
| Injunctions against child marriage |
| Child Marriage Prohibition Officers |
| B. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 |
| C. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 |
| D. The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005 |
| E. The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 |
| F. Policies formulated by the Union Government |
| G. States’ efforts to curb child marriage |
| i. Training schemes |
| ii. Awareness programs |
| iii. Financial incentives |
| iv. Other initiatives |
| v. Impact analysis of State schemes |
| VI. Traversing frontiers: international human rights norms |
| A. Universal framework |
| i. Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| ii. Recognition in political conventions |
| iii. Targeted focus: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
| B. Regional framework |
| i. African Union |
| ii. European Union |
| iii. SAARC |
| C. Rights based framework |
| i. Right to free choice and autonomy |
| a. Right to free and informed consent |
| b. Right against gender-based violence |
| ii. Right to education |
| a. Right to primary education |
| b. Right to be informed |
| c. Right to sex education |
| iii. Right to development of children |
| VII. India’s obligation |
| VIII. Constitutional guarantees against child marriage |
| A. Right to self-determination: choice, autonomy and sexuality of children |
| B. Right to health |
| C. Right to childhood: education and development |
| D. Reiterating the States’ obligations towards combatting child marriage |
| IX. Way forward |
| A. Legal Enforcement |
| B. Judicial Measures |
| C. Community Involvement |
| D. Awareness Campaigns |
| E. Training/Capacity Building |
| F. Educational and Social Support |
| G. Monitoring and Accountability |
| H. Technology-Driven Initiatives for Reporting Child Marriage |
| I. Funding and Resources |
| X. Suggestions |
| XI. Conclusion |
“Sir, I am one of those unfortunate Hindu women, whose hard lot it is to suffer the unnameable miseries entailed by the custom of early marriage. This wicked practice has destroyed the happiness of my life. It comes between me and that thing which I prize above all others—study and mental cultivation. Without the least fault of mine I am doomed to seclusion; every aspiration of mine to rise above my ignorant sisters is looked upon with suspicion, and is interpreted in the most uncharitable manner.”1[Extracted from a letter written by Rukhmabai to the Times of India on 26 June 1885.]
Rukhmabai
I. Background
1. The Petitioner has approached this court under Article 32 of the Constitution to raise an issue which has been debated in our nation for over one and a half centuries. The Petitioner is an NGO that has worked extensively against child marriage. The Petitioner’s primary grievance is that despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 20062[‘PCMA’], the rate of child marriages in India is alarming. The Petitioner seeks to address the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages. The Petitioner has sought stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, the appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, and comp
