SC frames slew of guidelines to eradicate child marriages

Highlights

New Delhi: Terming the prevalence of “social evil” of child marriages as “sobering”, the Supreme Court on Friday passed a slew of directions to the...

New Delhi: Terming the prevalence of “social evil” of child marriages as “sobering”, the Supreme Court on Friday passed a slew of directions to the Centre, states and other authorities to eradicate the malaise.

In a 141-page judgment, a bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, therefore, issued several directions to the stakeholders under nine heads, including for appointment of officers solely responsible for discharging the functions of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPO) at the district level in the country.

The court further said, “Child marriage is a social evil, and its commission is a criminal offence. Despite the near-universal agreement on the ills of child marriage, its commission and prevalence have been sobering. Child marriage is the phenomenon of children being married before they attain the minimum legal age under the law.”

Dealing with the contentious issue whether the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 would prevail over personal laws governing marriage, it said the Centre had failed to provide conflicting judgements of various high courts on the issue as claimed.

“The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amending) Bill 2021 was introduced in Parliament on December 21, 2021. The Bill was referred for examination to the Department Related Standing Committee on education, women, children, youth and sports. The Bill sought to amend the PCMA to expressly state the overriding effect of the statute over various personal laws. The issue, therefore, is pending consideration before Parliament,” said the bench.

Under the title of “Legal Enforcement”, the top court said, “State governments and Union Territories (UTs) must appoint officers solely responsible for discharging the functions of CMPO at the district level. These officers should not be burdened with additional duties that could impede their focus on preventing child marriage.”

Observing the term child marriage was an “oxymoron”, the bench said, “A child implies a person whose capacity to make legal decisions is not fully developed. On the other hand, marriage is an institution with legal standing… Marriage dictates the framework rules of permissible and impermissible social behaviours. However, a child is incapable of understanding the broad and serious obligations expected from members of a marital union.”

Such marriages often deprive children of intellectual, social and psychological development and carry life-threatening risks, it underscored. The top court opined child marriages needed an intersectional approach towards the vulnerabilities experienced by children, especially girls from marginalised communities. “Intersectionality involves considering factors like gender, caste, socioeconomic status, and geography, which often increase the risks of early marriage. Preventive strategies should therefore be tailored to the unique needs of various communities and focus on addressing the root causes of child marriage, such as poverty, gender inequality, lack of education, and entrenched cultural practices,” it said.

Framing guidelines, it said these would prioritise “prevention before protection and protection before penalisation” as it was cognizant of the impact that criminalisation has on families and communities. “To ensure effective use of penal provisions in the PCMA, it is imperative that there is widespread awareness and education about child marriage and the legal consequences of its commission,” the bench said.