Court Slams NCPCR, Upholds Marriage of 16-Year-Old Muslim Girl

The Supreme Court has rejected a petition from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), criticizing its challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s stance on the marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl. The court, represented by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, stated the NCPCR lacked the authority to file such a petition. The NCPCR had contested a 2022 decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which validated the marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl to a Muslim man and provided security to the couple. The Supreme Court’s decision involved dismissing the NCPCR’s special leave petition. The court questioned the NCPCR’s right to challenge the High Court’s order, particularly since the High Court aimed at safeguarding two minors. During the hearing, the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, highlighted the inconsistent rulings of different High Courts on the issue. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) assured that the matter would be addressed promptly. Previously, the court had acknowledged that in Islam, marriage is permissible after sexual maturity, therefore, the POCSO Act and kidnapping charges were not applicable in this case. The NCPCR argued against the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the POCSO Act sets the age for physical relations at 18. The High Court’s ruling did not align with this, as it did not forbid the marriage of a 16-year-old. The High Court decided not to delve into the girl’s age, as it was the responsibility of the trial court. The petitioner was denied any relief, and the anticipatory bail application was dismissed. In 2024, the minor testified before a magistrate, stating she did not want to live with her parents and was subsequently sent to a children’s home. The petitioner informed the High Court that an ossification test indicated the girl was an adult. School records from the Haryana government confirmed the girl’s birth in March 2008, making her 15 years and 9 months old. The petitioner asserted that the marriage was based on the victim’s consent.