On Tuesday, August 19, the Supreme Court dismissed the National Child Rights Commission (NCPCR), which challenges the decision of the High Court in Panjab and Haryana, which confirmed the marriage of a 16 -year -old Muslim girl under personal law and prolonged protection against her and her husband.
The justice bench BV Nagarathna and the judiciary r Mahadevan decided that the child’s rights body had no locus standi to challenge the order of the High Court, which was delivered in 2022.
Also read | Chhattisgarh escape from prison: 4 accusations of rape
Why did the Supreme Court rejected the NCPCR petition?
The Supreme Court’s bench noted that NCPCR was a “foreigner of a lawsuit” and therefore could not question the relief granted by the High Court.
“Why should NCPCR question the High Court’s order that provides protection for life and freedom of the couple who faced threats?” The judges asked, as Livelaw states.
The Top Court added: “NCPCR has no place to attack such an order … If two minor children are protected by the High Court, how can NCPCR call such an order? Is it strange that the NCPCR, which is for the protection of children, has attacked such an order.”
The Bench of the Supreme Court, which dismissed the reason, further remarked: “We do not see how NCPCR can be damaged by such an order. If the High Court is trying to extend protection to two individuals under Article 226, NCPCR has no locus to question such an order.” As Livelaw quoted.
Also read | The Supreme Court asks the Center to establish the Courts of POCSO on the “highest priority basis”
What was the NCPCR argument?
The lawyer for the Commission claimed that the petition was filed in order to raise a legal question: whether a girl under 18 could be considered competent to marry only on the basis of personal law.
NCPCR claimed that the High Court’s decision effectively allowed the marriage of children to contradict the 2006 -term marriage and undercut law and undermined the Protection Act against sexual offenses (POCSO) from 2012, which does not recognize consent from anyone under 18.
However, the bench rejected this argument and stated that there was no “no question of the law” in this matter. “There is no question of law, you are inviting, please,” Nagarathna said.
The court also rejected the Commission’s application to be open to the legal question.
Also read | Delhi HC says the phrases of “physical relationships” cannot mean sexual assault
What did the High Court ruled in 2022?
The High Court in Punjab and Haryana issued his decision in the Habeas Corpus petition filed by a Muslim man who claimed that his 16 -year -old partner was illegally detained by her parents. The couple was looking for protection to get married.
The High Court relied on a Muslim personal law that allows a girl who has achieved puberty to conclude marriage. Referring to the principles of Mohammedan law, Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mully, the court noted that it is assumed that a Muslim girl over 15 years of age had achieved puberty unless otherwise proven.
The judgment stated: “The law, as stipulated in the various judgments mentioned above, is clear that the marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by a Muslim personal law. According to Article 195… the petitioner No. 2 was more than 16 years to compete with a marriage with the person he chose.”
Also read | Storage of child pornographic material Criminal offense according to POCSO Act: Supreme Court
How did the Supreme Court deal with fears according to POŠSO?
During the hearing of Judge BV Nagarathn, he noted that consensual romantic relationships between teenagers close to the majority should not automatically cope with criminal cases.
“There is a law of Pocso, which takes care of criminal cases, but there are romantic cases also, when teenagers on the brink of most runs where there are real romantic cases, want to marry. We do not read such cases as criminal cases.
The Supreme Court’s judge also added: “Look at the trauma that the girl undergoes if she loves the boy and is sent to prison because her parents would give the case to cover the escape.”
(Tagstotranslate) Supreme Court
