{"file_name": "2024_10_1513_1632_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1513 : 2024 INSC 790\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. \nv. \nUnion of India & Ors.\n\n(Writ Petition (C) No. 1234 of 2017)\n\n18 October 2024\n\n[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,  \nJ.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nPetitioner,  an  NGO  raised  significant  concerns  as  regards \nprevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent \nthem despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, \n2006. Sought issuance of effective guidelines inter alia for stronger \nenforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of \nChild  Marriage  Prohibition  Officers,  and  comprehensive  support \nsystems for child brides.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nChild Marriage – Guidelines issued for effective implementation \nof  the  Prohibition  of  Child  Marriage  Act,  2006  (PCMA)  and \nachieving the elimination of child marriage:\n\nHeld: The success of PCMA, a social legislation requires collective \nefforts  of  all  stakeholders  –  Need  for  intersectional  approach, \nmulti-  sectoral  coordination,  preventive  and  community-driven \nstrategies  to  ensure  complete  eradication  of  child  marriages, \nemphasized  –  Guidelines  issued  with  respect  to-(1)  Legal \nenforcement pertaining to appointment and accountability of Child \nMarriage Prohibition Officers (CMPO); District-Level responsibility for \nactive prevention of child marriages; Establishment of a Specialized \nPolice Unit and Special Child Marriage Prohibition Unit – (2) Judicial \nmeasures such as empowering Magistrates to take suo moto action \nand  issue  preventive  injunctions;  Exploration  of  Special  Fast-\nTrack Courts for child marriage cases; Mandatory action against \nneglectful  Public  Servants  –  (3)  Community  involvement  which \nincludes Annual  action  plans  and  Community-Centric  Capacity \nBuilding; Adoption  of  the  Child  Marriage  Free  Village  Initiative  – \n(4) Awareness Campaigns: Led by CMPOs in Schools, Religious \n\n* Author\n\n\f1514 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nInstitutions,  Panchayats;  Integrating  comprehensive  sexuality \nand rights education into school curricula; Educational materials \nand community awareness tools; Targeted community awareness \ncampaigns; Empowerment programs for girls and young women; \nHelpline  awareness  and  reporting  mechanisms  –  (5)  Training/\nCapacity Building for Teachers and School Administrators, Training \nfor Community Health Workers and Educators, Law Enforcement, \nJudicial Officers and Health Care Providers; as also Empowerment \nof  Local  Leaders  and  Community  Influencers;  Engagement  with \nNon-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) – (6) Educational and \nSocial Support like scholarships, educational incentive programs \nspecifically targeted at girls at risk of child marriage; Social Welfare \nPrograms; Convergence and continuity of services – (7) Monitoring \nand Accountability which inter alia includes formulation of Standard \nOperating  Procedure  by  NALSA,  Ministry  of  Women  and  Child \nDevelopment, in consultation with State Child Protection Societies, \nNational Commission for protection of child rights; Monitoring also \nincludes role of Panchayats and local leaders; Individual care plans \nfor At-Risk  girls  –  (8)  Technology-driven  initiatives  for  reporting \nchild marriage such as creation of a Centralized Reporting Portal; \nTechnology-Driven Support Services; Monitoring of Attendance – \n(9)  Funding  in  form  of  Dedicated  annual  budget  allocation  by \nrelevant ministries of the Union Government for each State aimed \nat preventing child marriage and supporting affected individuals; \nInstitutionalization  of  Juvenile  Justice  Fund;  Compensation  for \nGirls opting out of marriage; Identification and support for At-Risk \nChildren. [Para 211]\n\nProhibition  of  Child  Marriage  Act,  2006  (PCMA)  vis-à-vis \nPersonal  laws  –  PCMA,  if  overrides  various  personal  laws \ngoverning marriage:\n\nHeld:  Issue  is  pending  consideration  before  Parliament  as  the \nProhibition  of  Child  Marriage  (Amending)  Bill  2021  introduced  in \nParliament  sought  amendment  of  PCMA  to  expressly  state  the \noverriding effect of the statute over various personal laws. [Para 214] \n\nSuggestions by Supreme Court – Outlawing of child betrothals:\n\nHeld:  Child  betrothals,  marriages  fixed  in  the  minority  of  a  child \nundermines  and  violates  their  rights  to  free  choice,  autonomy, \nagency and childhood – Though Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, \n2006 prohibits child marriages, it does not stipulate on betrothals – \nParliament may consider outlawing child betrothals. [Para 215]\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1515\n\nChild marriage – Constitutional guarantees against – Right to \nself-determination: choice, autonomy and sexuality of children; \nRight  to  health;  Right  to  childhood:  Right  to  education  and \ndevelopment – Explained – Evils of child marriage, enumerated:\n\nHeld: Child marriage deprives children of their agency, autonomy, \nright to sexuality and right to enjoy their childhood – The right to \nlife and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is violated \nby the commission of child marriage – Both sexes are adversely \naffected  by  forced  and  early  marriage  –  Constitution  recognises \nthe  right  a  person  has  over  all  aspects  of  their  sexuality  –  Men \nand women alike are victimised by compulsory heterosexuality – \nIn  child  marriage,  their  limited  agency  within  heteropatriarchy  is \nalso taken away in infancy – Marrying in childhood objectifies the \nchild – Child marriage imposes mature burdens on children who are \nnot physically or mentally prepared to comprehend the significance \nof marriage – The right to choice and autonomy of a woman who \nis married as a child is violated by the system of child marriage – \nMinor  girls  forced  to  make  conjugal  relations  experience  post-\ntraumatic stress and depression emanating from sexual abuse by \nan elder partner – Right to choice and autonomy includes the right \nto reproductive freedom – The right to reproductive freedom is part \nof the rights wherein the right to the health of a person also finds \nplace – Constitution recognises the right to health as an inalienable \naspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 – Child \nmarriage inflicts tangible and lifelong physical and mental injuries \nto its members – Right to health is made illusory by all accounts \nwithin  such  an  institution  –  The  effect  of  child  marriage  denies \nwomen their health which is vital to lead a dignified life – Marriage \nfor  most  women  in  patriarchal  societies  is  an  announcement  of \neducational conclusion – The minority of a woman’s age at the time \nof her marriage has a heightened impact on her education – Right \nto  primary  education  is  a  fundamental  right  expressly  enshrined \nunder Article  21-A  –  Issue  as  regards  approach  towards  boys  in \nchild marriage also ought to be taken into account – The right to \nchildhood belongs to all sexes – Primary, sexual and life enhancing \neducation  is  integral  to  the  right  to  childhood.  [Paras  171,  173, \n176-178, 184, 188, 191, 197]\n\nProhibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – Scheme of the Act – \nss.3-7,  9-12,  15,  13,  14,  16  –  Protection  of  women  married \nas  girls,  children  born  in  child  marriages  –  Maintenance \nand  residence  of  the  female  contracting  party;  custody  and \nmaintenance of children of a child marriage – Solemnization of \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1516 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nchild marriages – Punishment – Preventive measures against \nchild  marriages,  deterrence  and  prevention  –  Injunctions \nagainst child marriages – Elucidated – Appointment of Child \nMarriage  Prohibition  Officers  (CMPOs),  appointment  of \nexclusive CMPOs in each district directed.\n\nProhibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – s.9 – Punishment for \nmale adult marrying a child – Penalizing the groom based on \nhigher agency he possesses in the marriage as against the girl:\n\nHeld: Under s.9, the Court is empowered to penalise an accused \nwith imprisonment or a fine or both – Punishment can be imposed \nbased on the gravity of the offence, the circumstance of the marriage \nand the socio-economic power of the male over his child bride – \nFurther, despite the age of majority for a man to enter into a marriage \nbeing twenty-one under s.2(a), his criminal liability for entering into \na child marriage with a minor woman begins at eighteen – Under \ns.9, a woman, regardless of her age is not liable for entering into \na child marriage and a man above the age of eighteen but under \nthe age of twenty one is liable for marrying a girl who is under the \nage  of  eighteen  –  The  legislative  intent  behind  making  a  groom \nliable  for  entering  into  child  marriage  is  to  recognise  the  relative \ncontrol of the agency that a groom has in relation to his marriage \nas opposed to a girl. [Paras 52, 55]\n\nProhibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 – ss.10, 11 – Scope – \nPunishment  for  solemnising  a  child  marriage  –  Punishment \nfor promoting or permitting solemnisation of child marriages:\n\nHeld: The Act punishes three classes of persons – An adult groom \nin  a  child  marriage  (s.9);  persons  involved  in  the  solemnization \nof child marriage (s.10) and; persons promoting or permitting the \nsolemnization  of  child  marriage  (s.11)  –  s.10  is  expansive  and \ngoverns  any  accomplice  to  the  commission  of  child  marriage \nincluding the priest who performs the marriage, any family member, \nrelative  or  person  at  whose  direction  the  marriage  takes  place \nor  anyone  who  abets  it  –  Further,  under  s.11  any  person  having \ncharge of the child, who promotes or permits a child marriage or \nfails  to  prevent  it  is  liable  to  rigorous  imprisonment  which  may \nextend to two years and a fine – The person liable under s.11 may \nbe  the  parents  of  the  child  or  a  guardian  or  any  other  person  or \norganisation – The means by which a person may have the charge \nof the child is immaterial as the provision stipulates that the charge \nmay be ‘lawful or unlawful’ – Thus, the section penalises any person \nor organisation involved in a child marriage – Its expansive scope \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1517\n\nallows prosecution of any person who may have unlawfully taken \nthe custody of a child and thereafter promoted, permitted or failed \nto prevent the child marriage – s.11 also deals with organisations, \nsuch  as  orphanages  or  schools  or  hostels,  which  may  have  the \ncharge of a child and under whose watch the child is married off. \n[Para 52, 58, 60]\n\nProhibition  of  Child  Marriage  Act  2006  –  s.11  –  Intention  – \nExplained.\n\nProhibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 – s.12 – Child marriage \nwhen void ab initio – Stated.\n\nProhibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – s.11(2) – Presumption \nof negligence – Nature of presumption:\n\nHeld:  s.11(2)  raises  a  presumption  – Any  person  in  charge  of  a \nchild who was married off, is presumed to have negligently failed \nto  prevent  the  child  marriage  –  The  presumption  is  however, \nrebuttable and may be rebutted by proving that the person could \nnot have prevented the marriage or failed at preventing it, despite \ntheir  best  efforts  – This  principle  is  only  applicable  to  an  offence \nu/s.11. [Para 62]\n\nChild  marriage  –  Laws  governing  child  rights  –  Protective \nlegislations  such  as  Protection  of  Children  from  Sexual \nOffences Act, 2012 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of \nChildren) Act, 2015 – ss.2(14), 27, 106, 107 – Commissions for \nProtection of Child Rights Act 2005 – ss.2(b), 13, 24 – Legal \nServices Authorities Act  1987  –  s.12  –  Protective  framework \nof the Acts:\n\nHeld: 1. The principles of the POCSO Act are directly threatened \nby the commission of child marriage. The intent of the POCSO Act \nis to protect children from sexual advances. Child marriage on the \nother hand is an institution which puts minor girls directly in harm’s \nway.  Under  the  POCSO Act,  a  man  is  liable  to  punishment  for \nhaving sex with his minor wife. Nevertheless, the existence of child \nmarriage and its continued recognition in the law as a valid (and \nvoidable) marriage threatens the dignity of children. The institution \nof child marriage, more directly than any other institution, stipulates \nfor the sexual abuse of child brides by design. [Para 81]\n\n2.1  The  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of  Children) Act \nprovides a comprehensive framework to deal with children in need \nof care and protection (CNCP). Section 27 of the JJ Act establishes \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1518 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe  Child  Welfare  Committee  (CWC)  to  inter  alia  handle  and \nresolve complaints in relation to children who are in need of care. \nThe  CWC's  role  is  to  ensure  the  children's  basic  needs  are  met \nand that they are protected, treated, developed, and rehabilitated. \nTherefore, children who are married off are required to be produced \nbefore the CWC so that they may be rehabilitated and taken care \nof. As a beneficial social legislation aimed at children, the society \nand units constituted under the JJ Act are required to proactively \nidentify remedies and strategies for the rehabilitation and protection \nof victims of child marriages. [Para 85]\n\n2.2  Children  who  are  at  risk  of  marriage  at  the  hands  of  their \nfamily  or  relatives  are  expressly  recognised  as  CNCP  under \nthe  Act.  The  JJ  Act  further  prescribes  for  their  protection, \nrehabilitation  and  development.  While  victims  of  child  marriage \nare  protected  under  the  JJ Act,  it  further  strengthens  the  effort \nto  eliminate  child  marriages  by  creating  a  trained  and  skilled \nforce of police officers to deal with children. The Special Juvenile \nPolice  Units  (SJPUs)  are  marked  by  their  unique  ability  to  inject \nhumanity  in  law  enforcement.  The  task  of  law  enforcement \nofficers, the police in particular, has traditionally been associated  \nby the State’s ability to compel compliance to its norms. The formation \nof  SJPUs  reflects  a  refreshing  outlook  toward  police  work,  one \nwhich is imperative in liberal democracies’ treatment of vulnerable \ngroups.  Law  with  a  touch  of  humanity  and  law  enforcement  with \na boost of sensitivity and empathy are the cornerstone of the law \non children. [Para 88]\n\n3.1 The effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage \nAct,  2006  (PCMA)  also  falls  within  the  subject  matter  of  the \nNational Commission for the protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) \nand State Commissions for the protection of Child Rights (SCPCR) \nestablished under Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act \n2005. [Para 92]\n\n3.2 The Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) and \nthe NCPCR have been actively engaged in raising awareness about \nthe  negative  consequences  of  child  marriage  and  strengthening \nthe enforcement of the PCMA. In recent years, the NCPCR has \nconducted multiple review meetings and collaborated with a broad \nspectrum of stakeholders, including District Magistrates, CMPOs, \nChild  Development  Project  Officers  (CDPOs),  Child  Welfare \nCommittee  (CWCs),  and Anganwadi  Workers.  These  initiatives \nhave  aimed  to  create  a  coordinated  approach  to  tackling  child \nmarriage at the grassroots level. [Para 93]\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1519\n\n3.3 The NCPCR has also concentrated on identifying children at \nrisk by compiling school-wise data on those who have dropped out \nor exhibit irregular attendance. In 2023-2024, the NCPCR identified \n645,673 children across India who were either out of school or at \nrisk of early marriage. The Commission directed district authorities \nto pinpoint vulnerable children from this list, prevent their marriages, \nand  ensure  proper  rehabilitation  for  those  affected.  While  these \nawareness  campaigns  and  data-driven  interventions  have  been \nvital, it is evident that awareness alone is not enough to prevent \nchild  marriages  effectively.  Enforcement  of  laws,  community \nengagement, and support systems for vulnerable children are equally  \ncrucial. [Para 94]\n\n4. Section 12(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 stipulates \nthat any child who has to file or defend a case is entitled to legal \nservices.  The  Legal  Services Authorities  are  therefore  under  an \nobligation  under  the Act  to  assist  minors  who  file  cases  under \nthe  PCMA  to  exercise  their  statutory  rights.  The  National  Legal \nServices Authority,  State  Legal  Services Authority,  District  Legal \nServices Authorities, Taluk Legal Services Committees, High Court \nLegal  Services  Committees,  and  Supreme  Court  Legal  Services \nCommittee have formulated various schemes to be followed while \nthey deal with legal services to children. [Para 96]\n\nChild Marriage – Schemes, Policies formulated by the Union \nGovernment  also,  to  empower  young  girls  and  women  – \nDiscussed  –  Lack  in  implementation  of  targeted  measures \nsolely for prevention of child marriage – Direction issued for \nintroducing  special  scheme  focusing  on  skill  development, \nvocational  training  and  economic  stability  for  women  and \ngirls who leave child marriages – Various preventive training, \neducation, financial support, community-based initiatives and \nother initiatives by States and UTs – Stated – Impact analysis \nof State schemes.\n\nChild marriages – Child Rights Law – International law – Universal \nframework on Child Rights – International Conventions, Political \nConventions;  Regional  Conventions  –  Universal  Declaration \nof Human Rights; Supplementary Convention on the Abolition \nof  Slavery,  the  Slave  Trade,  and  Institutions  and  Practices \nSimilar to Slavery of 1956; International Covenant on Civil and \nPolitical  Rights;  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of All  Forms \nof Discrimination against Women; Convention on the Rights \nof the Child – Framework developed in the African Union, the \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1520 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nEuropean Union and the SAARC – Elucidated – Rights-based \nframework against child marriages: Right to free choice and \nautonomy – Right to free and informed consent, Right against \ngender-based violence; Right to education – Right to primary \neducation, Right to be informed, Right to sex education; Right \nto development of children – Stated.\n\nChild marriages – Indian jurisprudence – Constitution of India – \nArticle 51 – India’s obligation as regards international treaties, \nconventions and norms – Discussed.\n\nChild  marriage  – Age  of  marriage,  age  of  consent  –  History \ntraced  –  Effects,  socio-economic  determinants  of  child \nmarriage – Explained.\n\nChild  Marriage  Restraint  Act,  1929  –  Salient  features  – \nDiscussed.\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nUnion of India v. VR Tripathi [2018] 13 SCR 281 : (2019) 14 SCC \n646; Hardev Singh v. Harpreet Kaur [2019] 14 SCR 120 : (2020) \n19 SCC 504; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [1997] Supp. 3 SCR \n404 : 1997 AIR 3011; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of \nIndia [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) INSC 952; Apparel Export \nPromotion Council v. AK Chopra [1999] 1 SCR 117 : (1999) 1 SCC \n759;  Prem  Shankar  Shukla  v.  Delhi Admn.  [1980]  3  SCR  855  : \n(1980) 3 SCC 526; Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. v. Audrey \nD’ Costa [1987] 2 SCR 659 : (1987) 2 SCC 469; Sheela Barse v. \nSecy., Children’s Aid Society [1987] 1 SCR 870 : (1987) 3 SCC \n50, 51]; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [1997] \n1 SCR 923 : (1997) 3 SCC 433; D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [1996] \nSupp. 10 SCR 284 : (1997) 1 SCC 416, 438; M/s Entertainment \nNetwork (India) Ltd. v. M/s Super Cassette Industries Ltd. [2008] 9 \nSCR 165 : (2008) 13 SCC 30; Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal v. Union \nof India [2021] 13 SCR 823, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India \n[2018] 7 SCR 379 : (2018) 10 SCC 1; Joseph Shine v. Union of \nIndia [2018] 11 SCR 765 : (2019) 3 SCC 39; X v. Principal Secretary \n[2022] 12 SCR 246 : (2023) 9 SCC 433; National Legal Services \nAuthority v. Union of India [2014] 5 SCR 119 : (2014) 5 SCC 438; \nKS Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J) v. Union of India [2017] 10 SCR 569 : \n(2017) 10 SCC 1; Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India [2007] \n12  SCR  991  :  (2008)  3  SCC  1,  Pt.  Parmanand  Katara  v.  Union \nof India [1989] 3 SCR 997 : (1989) 4 SCC 286; Paschim Banga \nKhet Majoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal [1996] Supp. 2 SCR \n331  :  (1996)  4  SCC  37;  Independent  Thought  v.  Union  of  India \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1521\n\n[2017] 13 SCR 821 : (2017) 10 SCC 800; Sheela Barse II v. Union \nof India [1983] 2 SCR 337 : 1983 AIR 378; Unni Krishnan JP v. \nState of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 1 SCR 594 : (1993) 1 SCC 645; \nSociety for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India \n[2012] 2 SCR 715 : (2012) 6 SCC 1; Avinash Mehrotra v. Union \nof  India  [2009]  5  SCR  913;  Bachpan  Bachao Andolan  v.  Union \nof India [2011] 5 SCR 353 : (2011) 5 SCC 1; Maharishi Mahesh \nYogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of M.P. [2013] 13 SCR 464 : \n(2013) 15 SCC 677; Sampurna Behura v. Union of India [2018] 2 \nSCR 940 : (2018) 4 SCC 433; Just Rights for Children Alliance v. \nS Harish [2024] 10 SCR 154 : 2024 INSC 716; Shafin Jahan v. \nAshokan KM [2018] 4 SCR 955 : (2018) 10 SCC 1 – referred to.\n\nProsecutor v. Dominic Ongwen No. ICC-02/04-01/15 A A2 (Ongwen \nTrial Judgment); National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality \nv. Minister of Justice 1999 (1) SA 6, CC (South Africa); Artavia \nMurillo ET AL v. Costa Rica Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 257 \n(American Court of Human Rights); A.R. and L.R. v. Switzerland, \napplication no. 22338/15 (EtCHR); Association pour le progrès \net la défense des droits des femmes Maliennes (APDF) and the \nInstitute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) v. \nRepublic of Mali, App. No. 046/2016, Judgment, African Court \non Human and Peoples’ Rights [Afr. Ct. H.P.R.] (May 11, 2018); \nBVerfG, Order of the First Senate of 1 February 2023 - 1 BvL 7/18 \n(Germany) – referred to.\n\nBooks and Periodicals Cited\n\nPintu Paul (2020). Child Marriage Among Girls in India: Prevalence, \nTrends and Socio-Economic Correlates. Indian Journal of Human \nDevelopment, 14(2), 304. Sage Journals, Sanjay Kumar (2020). \nTrends,  Differentials  and  Determinants  of  Child  Marriage  in \nIndia: Evidence from Large-scale Surveys. Economic & Political \nWeekly  55(6),  57,  RC  Roy  (1888).  Child  Marriage  in  India. The \nNorth  America  Review  147(383)  415-423.  University  of  Iowa. \nAnita  Raj,  Niranjan  Saggurti,  Donta  Balaiah,  Jay  G  Silverman \n(2009).  Prevalence  of  child  marriage  and  its  effect  on  fertility \nand fertility-control outcomes of young women in India: a cross-\nsectional,  observational  study.  Lancet  373  1993-89, Anita  Raj \n(2010). When the mother is a child: the impact of child marriage \non  the  health  and  human  rights  of  girls. Archives  of  Disease  in \nChildhood, 95(11), 931. BJM Journals, UNICEF (2019). Evidence \nReview: Child Marriage interventions and research from 2020 to \n2022, UN General Assembly (1989). Convention on the Rights of \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1522 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe Child, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3, United \nNations  (2015).  Transforming  our  world:  The  2030 Agenda  for \nSustainable Development, Tahir Mahmood (1980). Marriage Age \nin  India  and Abroad  – A  Comparative Aspect.  Journal  of  Indian \nLaw Institute 22, 39, 41, HAQ Centre for Child Rights (n.d.). Child \nMarriage in India: Achievements, Gaps and Challenges, Response \nto Questions for OHCHR Report on Preventing Child, Early and \nForced Marriages for Twenty-sixth Session of the Human Rights \nCouncil,  Jaya  Sagade.  Child  Marriage  in  India:  Socio-legal  and \nHuman  Rights  Dimensions.  Oxford  University  Press,  2nd  ed. \n(2012) 17, 37, 39, 41, The Joshi Committee Report, 8,9,15, 196, \n174, para 379, Infant Marriage and Enforced Widowhood in India, \nBeing  a  Collection  of  Opinions  For  and Against,  Recorded  by \nMr. Behramji M. Malabari from Representative Hindu Gentlemen \nand  Official  and  Other Authorities,  Bombay  (1887),  Charles  H. \nHeimsath, Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform, Princeton \nUniversity  Press  (1964),  151,  163-165;  Geraldine  Forbes, \nWomen  and  Modernity:  The  Issue  of  Child  Marriage  in  India, \nWomen's Studies International Quarterly, 1979, Vol. 2, 407-419, \nSudhir  Chandra.  Enslaved  Daughters:  Colonialism,  Law  and \nWomen's  Rights.  Oxford  University  Press,  2nd  ed  (2008),  Ch. \n1,  Ratna  Kapur  &  Brenda  Cossman  (1996).  Subversive  Sites: \nFeminist  Engagements  with  Law  in  India.  Sage  Publications   \n49-50,  Ishita  Pande  (2020).  Sex,  Law,  and  the  Politics  of Age \nChild Marriage in India, 1891-1937. Cambridge University Press \n32, Annual Report 1995-1996, National Commission for Women, \n3, Annual Report 2001-2002, National Human Rights Commission, \n50-51,  336-348,  Social  and  Policy  Research  Foundation.  ‘Child \nand Early Marriage in India, Issue Brief’ (2021) referred in India \nChild Protection, Towards Justice: Ending Child Marriages (2024), \n21, NCCPR, Comprehensive Report of Virtual Review Meetings on \nChild Marriage with Districts All Over India For 2023-2024 (2024). \nRajasthan Government (2017), ‘State Strategy and Action Plan for \nPrevention of Child Marriage: Towards creating a child marriage \nfree  Rajasthan,  UN  General Assembly  (1989).  Convention  on \nthe  Elimination  of All  Forms  of  Discrimination Against  Women, \nUnited  Nations,  Treaty  Series,  vol.  1249,  p.13.,  Parliamentary \nAssembly of the Council of Europe, Forced Marriage in Europe \n(2018),  Resolution  2233,  para.  2,  The  Charter  of  the  South \nAsian Association  for  Regional  Cooperation,  UN  Convention  on \nConsent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration \nof  Marriages  1962,  American  Convention  on  Human  Rights \n1969, Arab Charter on Human Rights 2004. CEDAW Committee \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1523\n\nConcluding  Observations,  India  (Jan  1990).  UN  Doc. A/55/38, \nPara  78.  UNESCO  (2021).  Reimagining  our  futures  together:  a \nnew  social  contract  for  education,  International  Commission  on \nthe  Futures  of  Education,  UNFPA  (2012).  Marrying  Too  Young: \nEnd  Child  Marriage,  76  p.,  International  Commission  of  Jurists \n(2007).  Yogyakarta  Principles:  Principles  on  the Application  of \nInternational Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation \nand  Gender  Identity.  International  Commission  of  Jurists. \nInternational  Labour  Organization  (ILO)  Convention  No.  111 \non  discrimination  in  employment.  World  Health  Organization, \n(2023),  “What  is  Comprehensive  Sexuality  Education?”.  The \nSupplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave \nTrade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956, \nMaja Eriksson, ‘Article 16’ in The Universal Declaration of Human \nRights: A Commentary, ed. Aide Eide et al. (Oxford: Scandinavian \nUniversity Press, 1992), 243, The European Convention on Human \nRights, 1950, UNICEF (2023). A Profile of Child Marriage in South \nAsia;  UN  (2022).  United  Nations  Department  of  Economic  and \nSocial Affairs,  Population  Division,  World  Population  Prospects, \nThe  Convention  on  Regional Arrangements  for  the  Promotion \nof Child Welfare in South Asia, 2002, Council of Europe (2014). \nThe Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating \nViolence against Women and Domestic Violence, UN Population \nFund (1995). Report of the International Conference on Population \nand Development, Cairo, 5-13 September 1994, A/CONF.171/13/\nRev.1,  UNESCO  (2018).  International  technical  guidance  on \nsexuality  education:  an  evidence-informed  approach,  Nico \nSchrijver, Development without Destruction: The UN and Global \nResource Management (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, \n2010)  P.221,  Rangita  De  Silva  De-Alwis,  Child  Marriage  and \nthe Law – Legislative Reform Initiative Paper Series (New York: \nDivision of Policy and Planning, UNICEF, 2007 para 28, Douglas, \n‘The  Significance  of  International  Law’,  89-90,  Joint  general \nrecommendation  No.  31  of  the  Committee  on  the  Elimination \nof  Discrimination  against  Women  /General  comment  No.  18  of \nthe Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices”, \nUN  DocCEDAW/C/GC/31-CRC/C/GC18  (2014),  para  20,  The \nRome  Statute Article  7(1),  UN  Committee  on  the  Elimination  of \nDiscrimination Against Women, CEDAW General Recommendation \nNo.  21:  Equality  in  Marriage  and  Family  Relations  1994,  para \n16, CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against \nWomen,  Adopted  at  the  Eleventh  Session  of  the  Committee \non  the  Elimination  of  Discrimination  against  Women  (1992), \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1524 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nDocument A/47/38 [Para 11], UN General Assembly, Declaration \non the Elimination of Violence against Women, A/RES/48/104, UN \nGeneral Assembly (20 December 1991), International Covenant \non  Civil  and  Political  Rights  1966,  The  Universal  Declaration \nof  Human  Rights,  G.A.  Res.  217,  U.N.  Doc. A/810  (1948),  UN \nGeneral Assembly  (1966).  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and \nPolitical Rights, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, \nOHCHR (2013). Realising the Right to Development: Essays in \nCommemoration  of  25  Years  of  the  United  Nations  Declaration \non  the  Right  to  Development,  UN  General  Assembly  (1966). \nInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, \nUnited Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3, NCPCR (2017). A \nStatistical Analysis of Child Marriage in India, Based on Census, \n2011.  Young  Lives  and  National  Commission  for  Protection  of \nChild  Rights, The African  Charter  on  the  Rights  and  Welfare  of \nthe  Child  (1990).  OAU  Doc.  CAB/LEG/24.9/49,  IPAS,  African \nAlliance for Women’s Reproductive Health Rights – A Handbook \nfor Advocacy  in  the African  Human  Rights  System  (Chapel  Hill: \nIPAS, 2006), 29, Maputo Protocol – referred to.\n\nList of Websites\n\nhttps://www.unicef.org/protection/child-marriage, https://www.unicef.\norg/press-releases/115-million-boys-and-men-around-world-married-\nchildren-unicef,  https://data.unicef.org/resources/child-marriage-\nlatest-trends-and-future-prospects/,  https://www.india.gov.in/rajiv-\ngandhi-scheme-empowerment-adolescent-girls-sabla, https://www.\nmyscheme.gov.in/schemes/bbbp,  https://dwcd.karnataka.gov.in/\ninfo-4/Details+of+Government+orders+and+guidelines+for+major+\nschemes+and+programs+of+the+Department/en, https://www.echr.\ncoe.int/european-convention-on-human-rights – referred to.\n\nList of Acts\n\nProhibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; Constitution of India 1950; \nChild  Marriage  Restraint Act  1929; Age  of  Consent Act  1891; \nJuvenile  Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of  Children)  Act,  2015; \nProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012; Commissions \nfor Protection of Child Rights Act 2005; Legal Services Authorities \nAct 1987; Domestic Violence Act 2005; Penal Code 1860; Bharatiya \nNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; \nHindu  Widows’  Remarriage Act  1856;  Child  Marriage  Restraint \n(Second Amendment) Act 1938.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1525\n\nList of Keywords\n\nChild  marriage;  Guidelines  for  prevention,  elimination  of  child \nmarriage;  Constitutional  guarantees  against  Child  marriage; \nForced  marriages;  Child  Marriage  Prohibition  Officers  (CMPO); \nChild  brides;  Male  adult;  Groom;  Patriarchy;  Maternal  morbidity; \nAdolescent  fertility;  Girl  child;  Virginity;  Chastity;  Early  childbirth; \nTeenage  pregnancy;  Pregnancy  complications; Age  of  consent; \nAge  of  marriage;  Maintenance  and  residence  to  the  female \ncontracting  party;  Voidable;  Void;  Child  law;  Child  betrothals; \nWelfare and beneficial interest of the child; Ministry of Women and \nChild Development; Penalties; Presumption; Offences cognizable \nand non-bailable; Minor woman; Accomplice to the commission of \nchild  marriage;  Custodians  or  parents;  Injunctions  against  child \nmarriage; POCSO Act; JJ Act; Child Welfare Committee; Beneficial \nsocial legislation; National Commission for the protection of Child \nRights  (NCPCR)  and  State  Commissions  for  the  protection  of \nChild Rights (SCPCR); Legal Services Authorities; National Legal \nServices Authority,  State  Legal  Services Authority,  District  Legal \nServices Authorities, Taluk Legal Services Committees, High Court \nLegal  Services  Committees  and  Supreme  Court  Legal  Services \nCommittee;  State  Schemes;  Training  schemes;  Awareness \nprograms; Financial incentives; International human rights norms; \nUniversal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights  (UDHR);  International \nConventions;  Regional  Conventions;  Political  conventions; \nConvention  on  the  Elimination  of  All  Forms  of  Discrimination \nAgainst Women (CEDAW); Convention on the Rights of the Child \n(CRC); African  Union;  European  Union;  SAARC;  Right  to  free \nchoice and autonomy; Right to free and informed consent; Right \nagainst gender-based violence; Right to education; Right to primary \neducation; Right to be informed; Right to sex education; Right to \ndevelopment  of  children;  International  treaties;  Domestic  laws; \nInternational human rights standards; Right to self-determination: \nchoice, autonomy and sexuality of children; Right to health; Right \nto childhood: education and development; Community Involvement; \nAwareness  Campaigns;  Training/Capacity  Building;  Educational \nand Social Support; Social Welfare Programs; Standard Operating \nProcedures.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1526 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 1234 of 2017\n\n(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nMs. Mugdha, Kamran Khawja, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the Petitioners.\n\nTushar  Mehta,  Solicitor  General,  Ms. Aishwarya  Bhati, A.S.G., \nGurmeet  Singh  Makker,  Ms.  Snidha  Mehra,  Ms.  Swarupama \nChaturvedi,  Rajat  Nair,  Pratyush  Shrivastava,  Sandeep  Kumar \nMahapatra, Amrish  Kumar  Sharma,  Manish  Kumar, Abhimanyu \nTewari,  Ms.  Eliza  Barr,  Ms.  Deepanwita  Priyanka,  Prashant \nBhagwati,  Avijit  Mani  Tripathi,  Anando  Mukherjee,  Shwetank \nSingh,  Ms. Akshata  Chhabra,  Som  Raj  Choudhury,  Ms.  Shrutee \nAradhana, Prashant Kumar, Anand Shankar, Raghvendra Kumar, \nAnand Kumar Dubey, Jainendra Kumar, Aravindh S., Advs. for the \nRespondents.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nJudgment\n\nDr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI\n\nTable of Contents*\n\nI.\nII.\nIII.\n\nIV.\n\nV.\n\nBackground .......................................................................\nProcedural history and submissions ...............................\nA  vicious  cycle:  socio-economic  determinants  and \neffects of child marriage ..................................................\nA national reckoning: child marriage in India ................\nA. The age of consent .....................................................\ni. Rukhmabai’s case ..................................................\nii. Phulmoni Dasi’s case .............................................\nB. Regulating the age of marriage ..................................\nC. The Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 ......................\nContemporary legal framework .......................................\n\nA. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 ............\n\n6\n9\n\n14\n18\n18\n20\n24\n25\n27\n31\n\n31\n\n* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1527\n\ni. Recourse to the wedded: maintenance, residence \nand custody ..........................................................\n\nii. Penalties for child marriage ..................................\n\niii. Preventive measures under the PCMA ................\n\nInjunctions against child marriage ................................\n\nChild Marriage Prohibition Officers ...............................\n\nB. The  Protection  of  Children  from  Sexual  Offences \nAct 2012 .......................................................................\n\nC. The  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of \nChildren) Act 2015 ......................................................\n\nD. The  Commissions  for  Protection  of  Child  Rights \nAct 2005 ......................................................................\n\nE. The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 .................\n\nF. Policies formulated by the Union Government ......\n\nG. States’ efforts to curb child marriage ........................\n\ni.\n\nTraining schemes .................................................\n\nii. Awareness programs ............................................\n\niii. Financial incentives ...............................................\n\niv. Other initiatives ......................................................\n\nv.\n\nImpact analysis of State schemes ..........................\n\n34\n\n38\n\n45\n\n45\n\n49\n\n53\n\n55\n\n59\n\n61\n\n62\n\n65\n\n65\n\n66\n\n68\n\n69\n\n70\n\nVI.\n\nTraversing  frontiers:  international  human  rights  \nnorms ....................................................................................  72\n\nA. Universal framework .................................................\n\ni. Universal Declaration of Human Rights ...............\n\nii. Recognition in political conventions ......................\n\niii. Targeted focus: the Convention on the Elimination \nof All Forms of Discrimination against Women and \nthe Convention on the Rights of the Child. ..........\n\nB. Regional framework ..................................................\n\ni.\n\nAfrican Union .........................................................\n\nii. European Union ....................................................\n\niii. SAARC ..................................................................\n\nC. Rights based framework ...........................................\n\ni.  Right to free choice and autonomy ..........................\n\n73\n\n73\n\n74\n\n75\n\n77\n\n78\n\n80\n\n83\n\n84\n\n86\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1528 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\na. Right to free and informed consent .................\n\nb. Right against gender-based violence .............\n\nii. Right to education .................................................\n\na. Right to primary education ...............................\n\nb. Right to be informed .......................................\n\nc. Right to sex education ....................................\n\niii. Right to development of children ............................\n\nVII.\n\nIndia’s obligation ...............................................................\n\nVIII. Constitutional guarantees against child marriage .........\n\n87\n\n89\n\n91\n\n91\n\n92\n\n93\n\n94\n\n96\n\n98\n\nA.  Right to self-determination: choice, autonomy and \n\nsexuality of children .................................................. 100\n\nB. Right to health ............................................................ 105\n\nC. Right to childhood: education and development ....... 107\n\nD. Reiterating  the  States’  obligations  towards \n\ncombatting child marriage ......................................... 112\n\nIX. Way forward ...................................................................\n\nA. Legal Enforcement .................................................\n\nB. Judicial Measures ..................................................\n\nC. Community Involvement .......................................\n\nD. Awareness Campaigns ..........................................\n\nE. Training/Capacity Building ....................................\n\n116\n\n118\n\n122\n\n124\n\n125\n\n128\n\nF. Educational and Social Support .............................. 131\n\nG. Monitoring and Accountability ............................... 133\n\nH. Technology-Driven  Initiatives  for  Reporting  Child \n\nMarriage ........................................................\n\nI.\n\nFunding and Resources ........................................\n\nX.\n\nXI.\n\nSuggestions ..................................................................\n\nConclusion ....................................................................\n\n135\n\n136\n\n138\n\n140\n\n“Sir,  I  am  one  of  those  unfortunate  Hindu  women,  whose  hard  lot \nit  is  to  suffer  the  unnameable  miseries  entailed  by  the  custom  of \nearly marriage. This wicked practice has destroyed the happiness of \nmy life. It comes between me and that thing which I prize above all \nothers—study and mental cultivation. Without the least fault of mine \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1529\n\nI  am  doomed  to  seclusion;  every  aspiration  of  mine  to  rise  above \nmy ignorant sisters is looked upon with suspicion, and is interpreted \nin the most uncharitable manner.” 1\n\n~ Rukhmabai\n\nI. \n\nBackground\n\n1.  The  Petitioner  has  approached  this  court  under Article  32  of  the \nConstitution to raise an issue which has been debated in our nation \nfor over one and a half centuries. The Petitioner is an NGO that has \nworked extensively against child marriage. The Petitioner’s primary \ngrievance is that despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child \nMarriage Act 20062, the rate of child marriages in India is alarming. \nThe Petitioner seeks to address the failure of authorities to prevent \nchild  marriages.  The  Petitioner  has  sought  stronger  enforcement \nmechanisms, awareness programs, the appointment of Child Marriage \nProhibition  Officers,  and  comprehensive  support  systems  for  child \nbrides  –  including  education,  healthcare,  and  compensation,  to \nensure the protection and welfare of vulnerable minors. Accordingly, \nthe Petitioner prays for the issuance of effective guidelines. \n\n2.  Child marriage is a social evil, and its commission is a criminal offence. \nDespite the near-universal agreement on the ills of child marriage, \nits commission and prevalence have been sobering. Child marriage \nis the phenomenon of children being married before they attain the \nminimum legal age under the law. Globally, children continue – despite \nlegal  norms  to  the  contrary  –  to  be  married  before  they  reach  the \nage  of  eighteen  years.  Patriarchy,  gender  inequality,  poverty  and \nlack of education and employment lead to child marriage.3 The UN \nConvention on the Rights of the Child regards child marriage as a \nviolation  of  human  rights4.  While  both  sexes  are  inflicted  with  the \nviolence of child marriages, the prevalence of child marriage globally \namong boys is one-sixth that of girls.5\n\n1 \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nExtracted from a letter written by Rukhmabai to the Times of India on 26 June 1885.\n\n‘PCMA’\n\nUNICEF  (2023).  Child  Marriage.  https://www.unicef.org/protection/child-marriage;  Anita  Raj  (2010). \nWhen the mother is a child: the impact of child marriage on the health and human rights of girls. Archives \nof Disease in Childhood, 95(11), 931. BJM Journals.\n\nUnited Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child.\n\nUNICEF (2019). 115 Million Boys and Men Around the World Married as Children. https://www.unicef.\norg/press-releases/115-million-boys-and-men-around-world-married-children-unicef.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1530 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n3.  Elimination of child, early and forced marriages has been committed \nto  by  one  hundred  and  ninety-three  nations,  including  India  under \ntarget  5.36  of  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals7.  Section  28  of \nPCMA defines child marriage as a marriage to which either of the \ncontracting  parties  is  a  child.  Girls  below  the  age  of  eighteen  and \nboys below the age of twenty-one are deemed to be children under \nthe PCMA.9\n\n4.  The 2019-2021 National Family Health Survey-510 pits child marriage \nat 23.3% of girls11 under the age of eighteen and 17.7% of boys12 \nunder  the  age  of  twenty-one.  The  data  is  based  on  a  survey  of \nwomen  aged  20-24  and  men  aged  25-29.This  is  a  reduction  from \nthe 2015-2016 NFHS-4 which showed that 26.8% of girls and 20.3% \nof boys marry under the legal age of marriage. Child marriage has \nbeen on a steady decline in India. The prevalence of child marriages \nin India has halved since the enactment of the PCMA in 2006 from \n47% to 27% in 2015-16 and 23.3% in 2019-2021.13 The decline in \nchild  marriage  in  India  is  in  line  with  the  global  trend.  In  the  past \ndecade,  the  proportion  of  girls  married  as  children  has  dropped \nby  15%.14  Despite  these  enormous  strides  globally  and  in  India, \nno region in the world is on track to attain the SDG-5 target.15 It is \nestimated that the progress in reducing child marriage would need \nto be twelve times faster than the rate observed in the past decade \nto achieve the SDG-5 target.16\n\n6 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\nUnited Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.\n\n‘SDG’\n\n“2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— \n(a) “child” means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty-one years of age, and if a female, \nhas not completed eighteen years of age; \n(b) “child marriage” means a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a child; \n(c) “contracting party”, in relation to a marriage, means either of the parties whose marriage is or is about \nto be thereby solemnised; …”\n\n9 \n\nSection 2(a), PCMA.\n\n10 \n\n‘NFHS-5’\n\n11  Data based on the survey of women ages 20-24, NFHS-5.\n\n12  Data based on the survey of men ages 25-29, NFHS-5.\n\n13  NFHS-3, NFHS-4, NFHS-5.\n\n14  UNICEF (2018). Child Marriage: Latest trends and future prospects. https://data.unicef.org/resources/\n\nchild-marriage-latest-trends-and-future-prospects/. \n\n15 \n\nIbid.\n\n16  Pintu  Paul  (2020).  Child  Marriage  Among  Girls  in  India:  Prevalence,  Trends  and  Socio-Economic \n\nCorrelates. Indian Journal of Human Development, 14(2), 304. Sage Journals.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1531\n\n5.  The  term  child  marriage  is  an  oxymoron. A  child  implies  a  person \nwhose capacity to make legal decisions is not fully developed. On \nthe other hand, marriage is an institution with legal standing. The law \nseeks to govern the legitimacy of sexual activity and marriage is the \ninstitution in which it is legitimised. Marriage dictates the framework \nrules of permissible and impermissible social behaviours. However, a \nchild is incapable of understanding the broad and serious obligations \nexpected  from  members  of  a  marital  union.  Child  marriage  often \ndeprives children of intellectual, social and psychological development \nand  carries  life-threatening  risks.  It  therefore  comes  as  a  great \ntragedy that the term child marriage is normalised to a point where \nthis blatant paradox is lost on most people.\n\nII.  Procedural history and submissions\n\n6.  This Court issued notice to the Union of India on 13 April 2018. On \n13 April 2023, this Court further directed the Ministry of Women and \nChild Development to file a status report elucidating the following:\n\n(i)  The data collected from various States bearing on the nature \n\nand extent of child marriages; \n\n(ii)  Steps taken to implement the provisions of the PCMA; and \n\n(iii)  The policies formulated by the Union government to effectuate \n\nthe purpose.\n\nThe  Court  also  directed  the  Union  to  consult  the  States  on  the \nappointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers17 under Section 1618 \n\n17 \n\n18 \n\n‘CMPO’\n\n“16. Child Marriage Prohibition Officers\n(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for the whole State, or \nsuch part thereof as may be specified in that notification, an officer or officers to be known as the Child \nMarriage Prohibition Officer having jurisdiction over the area or areas specified in the notification.\n(2) The State Government may also request a respectable member of the locality with a record of social \nservice or an officer of the Gram Panchayat or Municipality or an officer of the Government or any public \nsector undertaking or an office bearer of any non-governmental organisation to assist the Child Marriage \nProhibition Officer and such member, officer or office bearer, as the case may be, shall be bound to act \naccordingly.\n(3) It shall be the duty of the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer\n\n(a) to prevent solemnisation of child marriages by taking such action as he may deem fit;\n(b) to collect evidence for the effective prosecution of persons contravening the provisions of this Act;\n(c) to advise either individual cases or counsel the residents of the locality generally not to indulge in \npromoting, helping, aiding or allowing the solemnisation of child marriages;\n(d) to create awareness of the evil which results from child marriages;\n(e) to sensitise the community on the issue of child marriages;\n(f) to furnish such periodical returns and statistics as the State Government may direct; and\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1532 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nof the PCMA and submit a comprehensive affidavit on whether the \nofficers appointed as CMPOs are given other multifarious duties. \n\n7.  The Ministry of Women and Child Development has submitted that it \nhas successfully collected data from all States and Union Territories \nexcept Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Odisha, Sikkim, Jammu \n&  Kashmir  and  Lakshadweep.  The  data  placed  on  record  by  the \nMinistry reflects that many child marriages are prevented before their \nsolemnization. The remaining cases are investigated and prosecuted \nunder the law. We shall analyse the data submitted by the Ministry \nof Women and Child Development in the course of this judgment.\n\n8.  On  10  July  2024,  this  Court  heard  Ms  Mugdha,  learned  counsel \nappearing  on  behalf  of  the  Petitioner  as  well  as  Ms  Aishwarya \nBhati,  learned Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing  on  behalf  of \nthe Union of India. While reserving the judgment this Court granted \nliberty to the Petitioner and the Union to make their submissions in \nthe  form  of  a  note  including  suggestions  on  ways  for  the  effective \nenforcement of PCMA. \n\n9.  The Petitioner has submitted that:\n\n(i)  Data from NFHS-4 and NFHS-5 reflects that high rate of child \nmarriages have been solemnised. The Petitioner submits that \nthis can be gathered from the rate of adolescent pregnancies \nin multiple States;\n\n(ii)  Under  Section  16  of  PCMA,  CMPOs  are  empowered  to \nprevent child marriages. However, findings from HAQ - Centre \nfor  Child  Rights19  show  that  CMPOs  are  often  tasked  with \nmultiple responsibilities, limiting their capacity to focus on child \nmarriage  prevention.  Many  States  designate  officials  holding \nother  substantial  roles,  such  as  Child  Development  Project \n\n(g) to discharge such other functions and duties as may be assigned to him by the State Government.\n(3) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, subject to such conditions and \nlimitations, invest the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer with such powers of a police officer as may be \nspecified in the notification and the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer shall exercise such powers subject \nto such conditions and limitations, as may be specified in the notification.\n(4) The Child Marriage Prohibition Officer shall have the power to move the Court for an order under \nsections 4, 5 and 13 and along with the child under section 3.”\n\n19  HAQ  Centre  for  Child  Rights  (n.d.).  Child  Marriage  in  India:  Achievements,  Gaps  and  Challenges, \nResponse to Questions for OHCHR Report on Preventing Child, Early and Forced Marriages for Twenty-\nsixth Session of the Human Rights Council.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1533\n\nOfficers20 or District Welfare Officers as the CMPO. This leads \nto  CMPOs  prioritising  their  duties  in  the  discharge  of  other \nroles – defeating the purpose of appointing CMPOs - as they \nwould  not  have  the  time,  monetary  and  human  resources  to \ncarry out the responsibilities enumerated in the Act. For instance, \nSection 3(1) of the Mizoram Gazette mandates that the District \nSocial Welfare Officer or, in their absence, the CDPO acts as \nthe CMPO;\n\n(iii)  Responses to various requests under the Right to Information \nAct 200521 by all States and UTs reveal significant disparities in \nthe appointment and functionality of CMPOs. Of the 36 States \nand UTs, only 23 responded, and only 14 provided substantive \ndata. Most of the responses indicated the transfer of the RTI \nto other departments without concrete answers. Notably, only \nHaryana  and  Sikkim  reported  having  exclusively  appointed \nCMPOs. In contrast, other States and UTs assign these duties \nto already overburdened officers, such as District Magistrates \nor CDPOs, undermining the effectiveness of CMPOs;\n\n(iv)  There is a discrepancy between data from the National Crime \nRecords Bureau22 and information obtained from various State \ndepartments in response to RTIs. For example, in Rajasthan, \nthe Department of Women and Child Development reported 573 \nand 567 incidents of child marriage in 2015-16 and 2016-17, \nrespectively, despite only 576 cases being formally recognized \nby authorities in 2016-17; and\n\n(v)  Analysis of data further reveals not only a low number of child \nmarriage  cases  reported  to  the  police  compared  to  NFHS-4 \ndata but also an exceptionally low conviction rate.\n\n10.  Therefore, the Petitioner prays for directives to authorities at multiple \nlevels  to  prevent  and  address  child  marriages,  particularly  during \nmass events, ensure accountability for officials who fail in this duty, \nand appointment of CMPOs with exclusive powers. They also seek \ncollaboration with NGOs, inclusion of child marriage awareness in \n\n20 \n\n21 \n\n22 \n\n‘CDPOs’\n\n‘RTI’\n\n‘NCRB’\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1534 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nschool  curriculums,  and  comprehensive  government  support  for \naffected child brides.\n\n11.  The Union of India has submitted that:\n\n(i)  Child marriages persist due to societal perceptions and economic \npressures. Girls are often seen as burdens, with early marriage \nviewed  as  an  appropriate  option. Additionally,  investment  in \na  girl’s  education  is  frequently  regarded  as  wasteful,  leading \nsome  families  to  end  schooling  early  and  consider  marriage \ninstead.  Poverty  and  structural  inequalities,  including  gender, \ncaste, and class, further drive child marriages;\n\n(ii)  The  PCMA  was  introduced  to  criminalize  the  facilitation  and \nsolemnization  of  child  marriage,  aiming  to  deter  this  harmful \npractice. Additionally, the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao23 program \naddresses gender-based issues by promoting girls’ education \nand empowerment, thereby supporting delayed marriage and \npromoting a culture that values girls’ rights and opportunities;\n\n(iii)  Census data from 2001 and 2011 indicates a decrease in child \n\nmarriage rates;\n\n(iv)  Data  from  NFHS-4  shows  a  reduction  in  the  percentage  of \nwomen aged 15-19 who were mothers or pregnant, from 16% in \n2005-06 to 7.9% in 2015-16. The National Commission for the \nProtection of Child Rights24 has identified 70 high-risk districts \nacross 13 states with the highest child marriage rates, and 52 \nof these districts are covered under the BBBP scheme;\n\n(v)  Programs  like  the  Mahila  Shakti  Kendra  aim  to  reach  rural \nwomen and girls, enhancing awareness and equipping them with \nknowledge on gender equality. The program operates District \nLevel  Centres  for  Women  across  640  districts  to  implement \ninitiatives  that  improve  women’s  status  and  address  gender-\nbased challenges; and\n\n(vi)  States and Union Territories25 have also taken various measures \n\nfor the elimination of child marriages.\n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 \n\n‘BBBP’\n\n‘NCPCR’\n\n‘UTs’\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1535\n\nIII.  A vicious cycle: socio-economic determinants and effects \n\nof child marriage\n\n12.  All  child  marriages  are  forced  marriages.  Many  parents  wish  to \nmarry  their  girl  child  early  to  guard  against  any  aspersions  on  the \ngirl’s virtue of virginity and to mitigate the economic costs associated \nwith  raising  a  child,  payment  of  dowry  and  conducting  a  wedding. \nThe  economic  factors  of  child  marriage  are  borne  out  by  studies \nthat reflect that child marriage in India predominantly occurs in less \neducated,  rural  and  poor  families.26  Parents  in  such  families  are \ninformed  by  a  survivalist  and  patriarchal  mindset  that  responds  to \nsocial, cultural and religious norms and economic necessity. \n\n13.  Culturally embedded concepts of virginity and chastity are used to \ncontrol the sexuality of women by men and the family. They are not \njust markers of control but are also made into identifiers of family and \ncommunity honour. By placing an overemphasis on these constructed \nvirtues,  a  false  sense  of  protectionism  is  generated  to  safeguard \ngirls against their ability of self-exploration and to form meaningful \nbonds  on  their  own.  Honour,  purity,  and  decisional  incapacity  are \npresented  as  the  domain  of  womanhood  and  its  protection  is  laid \nin  the  institution  of  marriage.  Parents  marry  their  daughters  early \nto  meet  the  prescription  of  a  society  rooted  in  parochial  norms  of \ncontrolling a woman’s sexuality. While patriarchy promises respect \nto  its  adherents,  it  only  leads  to  the  subordination  of  women  who \nare  deprived  of  any  meaningful  avenue  to  develop  their  agency \nand exercise their autonomy. The malleability of a girl child and her \ninability  to  form  informed  opinions  are  looked  up  to  as  desirable \nqualities.  These  qualities  are  understood  to  earn  her  favour  in \nthe  eyes  of  her  in-laws  in  serving  them  as  they  see  fit.27  In  less \neducated, rural and poor setups, members of the community lack \neffective opportunities and life chances. Investing in the education \nand  development  of  a  girl  is  seen  as  unworthy  and  unrealistic. \nThe lack of alternative means for education, employment and skill \ndevelopment  for  women  also  incentivises  parents  to  give  their \ndaughters away in child marriage. \n\n26  Sanjay Kumar (2020). Trends, Differentials and Determinants of Child Marriage in India: Evidence from \n\nLarge-scale Surveys. Economic & Political Weekly, 55(6), 57. \n\n27  See RC Roy (1888). Child Marriage in India. The North America Review 147(383) 415-423. University of \n\nIowa.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1536 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n14.  Parents  also  believe  that  their  daughters  would  be  saved  from \npregnancy  out  of  wedlock  and  be  guarded  against  unsolicited \nadvances by men if she were to be married early. Many marry their \ndaughters  off  but  delay  the  consummation  of  marriage  till  the  age \nof puberty. A gauna ceremony is performed to mark the growing up \nof  the  daughter  and  her  departure  from  the  parental  home  to  the \nmarital home upon getting menses. The delay in sending a child bride \nto her marital home is informed only by the bodily development of \nthe girl and is unbothered by any other consideration, such as the \nmental and educational development of the person or indeed her own \nchoice in the matter. The compounding of one evil to emerge out of \npatriarchy with another solution rooted in patriarchy has the effect of \nculturally stunting society and depriving children, girls in particular, \nof any avenue to exit from the cycle of generational oppression. \n\n15.  Notably, the very causes of child marriage ensure that members of the \nmarital union and their families are stuck in the vicious cycle of social \nand economic oppression. Early marriage in girls, places a burden on \nthem to discharge their duty of giving offspring to the family. Sexual \nactivity within themarital union is unregulated and even encouraged. \nA child, forced to prove her fertility, is exposed to enormous health \nrisks.  Her  body  is  mentally  and  physically  unprepared  for  sexual \nengagement which is forced upon her. Girls in child marriage report \nearly,  frequent  and  unplanned  pregnancies  which  are  linked  to \nincreased risk of maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. \n\n16.  Adolescent mothers are also likely to experience fistula, pregnancy \ncomplications  and  death  during  childbirth.28  Women  married  as \nchildren are likely to have their first child before the age of eighteen \nand  are  likely  to  have  had  atleast  three  or  more  childbirths  and  a \nrepeat childbirth in less than twenty-four months.29 Currently, between \nthe ages of 15 and 19, 7% of women have begun childbearing; 5% of \nwomen have successfully delivered, while 2% of women are pregnant \nwith  their  first  child.30  The  rate  of  teenage  pregnancy  is  higher  in \n\n28  Anita  Raj,  Niranjan  Saggurti,  Donta  Balaiah,  Jay  G  Silverman  (2009).  Prevalence  of  child  marriage \nand  its  effect  on  fertility  and  fertility-control  outcomes  of  young  women  in  India:  a  cross-sectional, \nobservational study. Lancet 373 1993-89.\n\n29 \n\nIbid. \n\n30  NFHS-5, 116. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1537\n\nrural India at 8%.31 States which have reported the highest levels of \nteenage pregnancies are Tripura (22%), West Bengal (16%), Andhra \nPradesh (13%), Assam (12%), Bihar (11%) and Jharkhand (10%).32\n\n17.  These  factors  have  a  detrimental  effect  on  maternal  mortality  and \nmorbidity. Adolescent  mothers  are  likely  to  develop  lifelong  health \nconsequences from sexual encounters and childbearing. They are \nalso more likely to be sterilized at an early age which is indicative \nof  a  lack  of  control  over  their  choices.33  Families  after  bearing  the \ndesired  number  of  offspring,  force  women  to  undergo  sterilization \nto  control  further  reproduction  in  the  family.34  The  high  rate  of \nsterilization found in women married as children would also lead to \nmore unprotected sex which leads to a risk of contracting sexually \ntransmitted diseases.\n\n18.  Lack  of  healthcare  access  in  rural  areas  and  for  poor  families \nmay  lead  to  further  health  complications  and  unsafe  medical \nprocedures including unsafe abortions.35 Further, women married as \nchildren are deprived of educational and employment opportunities \nthereby effacing them from public life. Education has an inversely \nproportional  effect  on  child  marriage.  87%  of  married  adolescent \ngirls did not attend school.36 In India, women having twelve or more \nyears  of  schooling  tend  to  marry  much  later  than  other  women. \nThe  median  age  at  first  marriage  for  women  between  the  age \nof 25-49 increases from 17.1 years for women with no schooling \nto 22.8 years for women with twelve or more years of schooling.37 \nThis is in line with studies conducted at a global level which reflect \nthat  child  marriages  are  66%  lower  among  girls  who  complete \nsecondary  education  and  80%  lower  among  those  who  pursue \nhigher education.38\n\n31 \n\nIbid. \n\n32  NFHS-5, 117.\n\n33  Anita Raj (2010). When the mother is a child: the impact of child marriage on the health and human rights \n\nof girls. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 95(11), 931. BJM Journals.\n\n34 \n\n35 \n\nIbid.\n\n Ibid. \n\n36  Government of India (2011). Census of India 2011.\n\n37  NFHS-5, 208.\n\n38  UNICEF (2019). Evidence Review: Child Marriage interventions and research from 2020 to 2022.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1538 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nIV.  A national reckoning: child marriage in India\n\nA.  The age of consent\n\n19.  The trajectory of child marriage in India is stubborn and persistent. \nIt  has  travelled  centuries,  and  its  opposition  seems  to  have  only \nincremental  successes  each  time.  Still  widely  prevalent,39  the  first \nmovement  against  child  marriage  in  modern  India  began  in  the \nlatter part of the nineteenth century. Social reformers were trying to \nbuild public opinion against child marriage. Two concerns primarily \nanimated  the  call  against  child  marriages  by  early  reformers.  The \nfirst  was  the  high  number  of  early  widows.40  Because  the  rate  of \nmortality was low, many girls found themselves in widowhood in the \nearly years of their lives. The second reason behind seeking child \nmarriage reform was to protect young wives against forcible sexual \nintercourse, often by their husbands who were significantly older.41\n\n20.  Reformers  like  Ishwar  Chandra  Vidyasagar  had  successfully \nadvocated for widow remarriage which was hitherto believed to be \nimpermissible under Hindu law. These efforts led to the enactment \nof the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act 1856. However, the demands \nagainst child marriages were not immediately realised. Child marriage, \nan aversion to widow remarriage and the low mortality rate combined \nand morphed into a lethal destructive element in the Indian society.42\n\n21.  To address the devastation caused, in particular to women and girls, \nsocial reformers called for raising the minimum age of consent for \nwomen in penal rape statutes. The idea behind the demand for raising \nthe  age  of  consent  was  to  avoid  the  bodily  harm  inflicted  on  girls \nby their often-elderly husbands. A person below the age of consent \ncould not legally consent to any sexual activity thereby throwing any \nsexual conduct within the confines of statutory rape. Such laws already \nexisted in the presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay as \n\n39  NFHS-5.\n\n40  Tahir Mahmood (1980). Marriage Age in India and Abroad – A Comparative Aspect. Journal of Indian Law \n\nInstitute 22, 39.\n\n41 \n\nJaya  Sagade.  Child  Marriage  in  India:  Socio-legal  and  human  Rights  Dimensions.  Oxford  University \nPress, 2nd ed. (2012) 37.\n\n42  Tahir Mahmood (1980). Marriage Age in India and Abroad – A Comparative Aspect. Journal of Indian Law \n\nInstitute 22, 39.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1539\n\nearly as 1828.43 The laws in these presidency towns stipulated the \nage  of  consent  for  girls  to  be  eight  years  and  the  offence  of  rape \nagainst a girl below the age of consent was punishable with death.44 \nIn 1847, when the Law Commission was drafting the Indian Penal \nCode it decided, for the first time, to criminalise the consummation \nof marriage by a husband with his underage wife. The initial version \nof the Indian Penal Code 186045 stipulated the age of consent to be \nten  years  and  criminalised  marital  rape  by  a  husband  against  his \nwife under the age of consent.46\n\n22.  Raising the age of consent was seen as undue interference by the \ncolonial legislature into the personal laws of Indians.47 The movement \ngained  a  groundswell  of  support  because  of  efforts  by  Behramji \nMalabari, a journalist from Bombay, who began publishing his ‘notes’ \nin  his  newspaper  the  ‘Indian  Spectator’  in  1884.48  He  highlighted \nthe consequences of ‘infant marriages’ and ‘enforced widowhoods’ \nby recounting anecdotal accounts of victims. His polemical style of \nreporting sought to appeal to the humanity of the readers.49 Around \nthe same time, two cases came to the fore and exposed the evils \nwhich come out of child marriage. \n\ni. \n\nRukhmabai’s case\n\n23. \n\nIn 1874, at the age of eleven, Rukhmabai was married off to Dadaji \nBhikaji, a nineteen-year-old boy who was a cousin of her step-father. \nOwing to his reformist views, Rukhmabai’s stepfather did not send her \nto live with Dadaji Bhikaji immediately upon attaining puberty. Under \nhis guidance, Rukhmabai grew fond of studying and took plenty of \nadvantage  of  the  rich  collection  of  books  he  had  accumulated. As \n\n43  The Joshi Committee Report, 9.\n\n44 \n\n45 \n\nIbid.\n\n‘IPC’\n\n46  Ss. 375, 376, IPC 1860 (initial version).\n\n47  Tahir Mahmood (1980). Marriage Age in India and Abroad – A Comparative Aspect. Journal of Indian Law \n\nInstitute 22, 39.\n\n48 \n\nInfant  Marriage  and  Enforced  Widowhood  in  India,  Being  a  Collection  of  Opinions  For  and Against, \nRecorded by Mr. Behramji M. Malabari from Representative Hindu Gentlemen and Official and Other \nAuthorities,  Bombay  (1887);  Charles  H.  Heimsath,  Indian  Nationalism  and  Hindu  Social  Reform, \nPrinceton University Press (1964), 151.\n\n49  Charles H. Heimsath, Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform, Princeton University Press (1964), \n151; Geraldine Forbes, Women and Modernity: The Issue of Child Marriage in India, Women’s Studies \nInternational Quarterly, 1979, Vol. 2, 407-419.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1540 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nRukhmabai  grew  into  an  intelligent  and  forward-thinking  woman, \nDadaji Bhikaji slipped into indolence. This led Rukhmabai to refuse \nto live with Dadaji.50 In 1884, Dadaji instituted a suit for restitution of \nconjugal rights. At the time, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights \nwas enforceable and its violation was punishable with imprisonment. \nRukhmabai opposed the petition on the grounds of social, economic \nand personal incompatibility with Dadaji.51 She also asserted that she \nhad  not  ‘arrived  at  years  of  discretion’  at  the  time  of  her  marriage \nand therefore she could not be bound by it.52 Justice Pinhey of the \nBombay High Court dismissed the petition and held that Rukhmabai \nwas married before she could consent to such a marriage and cannot \ntherefore be compelled to live with her husband eleven years later \nwithout having cohabited in all this time. He observed that:\n\n“It  is  a  misnomer  to  call  this  a  suit  for  the  restitution  of \nconjugal rights. When a married couple, after cohabitation \nseparate  and  live  apart,  either  of  them  can  bring  a  suit \nagainst  the  other  for  the  restitution  of  conjugal  rights \naccording to the practice in England, and according to the \nlater practice of the Courts in India. But the present suit is \nnot of that character. The parties to the present suit went \nthrough the religious ceremony of marriage eleven years \nago when the defendant was a child of eleven years of age. \nThey have never cohabited. And now that the defendant \nis a woman of twenty-two, the plaintiff asks the Court to \ncompel her to go to his house, that he may complete his \ncontract  with  her  by  consummating  the  marriage,  The \ndefendant, being now of full age, objects to going to live \nwith the plaintiff, objects to allowing him to consummate \nthe  marriage,  objects  to  ratifying  and  completing  the \ncontract entered into on her behalf by her guardians while \nshe was yet of tender age. It seems to me that it would \nbe  a  barbarous,  a  cruel,  a  revolting  thing  to  do  to \ncompel  a  young  lady  under  those  circumstances  to \n\n50  Sudhir Chandra. Enslaved Daughters: Colonialism, Law and Women’s Rights. Oxford University Press, \n\n2nd ed (2008), Ch. 1.\n\n51 \n\nJaya  Sagade.  Child  Marriage  in  India:  Socio-legal  and  human  Rights  Dimensions.  Oxford  University \nPress, 2nd ed. (2012) 39.\n\n52  Sudhir Chandra. Enslaved Daughters: Colonialism, Law and Women’s Rights. Oxford University Press, \n\n2nd ed (2008), Ch. 1.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1541\n\ngo to a man whom she dislikes, in order that he may \ncohabit  with  her  against  her  will;  and  I  am  of  opinion \nthat neither the law nor the practice of our Courts either \njustified  my  malting  such  an  order,  or  even  justifies  the \nplaintiff in maintaining the present suit.”\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\n24.  The decision of Justice Pinhey was much ahead of its time. At a time \nwhen child marriage was the norm and the legal standard of consent \nwas inapplicable to marital laws, Justice Pinhey’s judgment was a \nbold declaration of the rights of Indian women to make their own life \nchoices. Unfortunately, the success was short-lived. The judgement \nhad caused an uproar in the public and Dadaji filed an appeal before \nthe Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Division Bench \nset aside the judgment of Justice Pinhey and directed Rukhmabai \nto join Dadaji within a month at the pain of penalty to undergo six \nmonths’ imprisonment. The court reasoned that incompatibility was \nno  defence  under  Hindu  law  against  a  petition  for  restitution  of \nconjugal rights. Firm as she was, Rukhmabai refused to join Dadaji \nand declared that she would subject herself to the maximum penalty \nadmissible  under  the  law,  rather  than  to  live  with  her  husband. \nThe sight of a Hindu woman being imprisoned shocked the public \nconscience. Dadaji entered a compromise and did not press for the \nexecution of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights against an \namount of Rs 2000/-. Rukhmabai went on to study medicine in the \nUK and became one of India’s earliest women doctors. \n\n25.  Rukhmabai’s  defiance  was  uncharacteristic  for  her  time  and \nthreatened, not only child marriage but also the indomitable idea of \na  woman’s  inferiority.  Her  assertion  of  womanhood  and  agency  in \nrefusing to go with a wayward husband whom she was given to in \nmarriage opened up new ways for women to imagine their autonomy. \nWriting to the editor of the Times of India on 26 June 1885, under \nthe pseudo name ‘A Hindu Lady’, Rukhmabai eloquently drew the \ndifferential  plains  on  which  the  experiences  of  boys  and  girls  in  a \nchild marriage are placed. She wrote:\n\n“The general apathy towards social improvements which \ncharacterizes  our  people  has  been  telling  upon  the \nwhole community, but tells most heavily upon the female \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1542 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nsex. Hindu social customs do not entail on men half the \ndifficulties which they entail upon women. Excepting the \ntwo principal difficulties resulting from infant marriage, they \nenjoy full mental and physical freedom. Religion or social \ncustom  does  not,  in  any  way,  interfere  with  their  liberty. \nMarriage does not interpose any insuperable obstacle in \nthe  course  of  their  studies.  They  can  marry  not  only  a \nsecond wife, on the death of the first, but have the right \nof  marrying  any  number  of  wives  at  one  and  the  same \ntime, or any time they please. If married early, they are not \ncalled upon to go to the house and to submit to the tender \nmercies of a mother-in-law; nor is any restraint put upon \ntheir actions because of their marriage. But the case with \nwomen is the very reverse of this. If the girl is married at \nthe age of eight (as most of them are), her parents are at \nliberty to send her to school till she is ten years old; but, \nif  they  wish  to  continue  her  at  school  longer,  they  must \nobtain the express permission of the girl’s mother-in-law. \nBut even in these advanced times, and even in Bombay—\nthe chief centre of civilization—how many mothers-in-law \nare  there  who  send  their  daughters  to  school  after  they \nare ten years old!”53\n\n26.  While  Rukhmabai’s  case  ultimately  witnessed  an  out  of  court \nsettlement  and  her  freedom,  another  case  around  the  same  time \njolted the conscience of the Indian society. \n\nii.  Phulmoni Dasi’s case\n\n27. \n\nIn 1889, Phulmoni Dasi was married off at the age of eleven years \nto a thirty-five-year-old man. At age eleven years and three months, \nshe was subjected to marital rape by her husband, Hari Maiti. She \nsuccumbed to haemorrhage from a rupture of the vagina caused by \nher husband.54 The Court ruled that the law of rape was inapplicable \nbecause Phulmani had reached her tenth birthday and was married \nto  Hari. The  coverage  of  the  case  as  well  as  the  trial  cast  a  male \n\n53  Extracted from a letter written by Rukhmabai to the Times of India on 26 June 1885.\n\n54 \n\nJaya  Sagade.  Child  Marriage  in  India:  Socio-legal  and  human  Rights  Dimensions.  Oxford  University \nPress, 2nd ed. (2012) 37.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1543\n\nmedical gaze over the body of the deceased victim. Even after her \ndeath, she was subjected to scrutiny to determine her true age and \ngrowth.  Questions  of  her  immaturity  and  puberty  were  not  sought \nas  an  ornate  way  to  bring  her  husband  to  justice  but  were  rather \nasked to defend him.\n\n28.  The gruesome case of Phulmani galvanised support for Malabari’s \ncampaign  to  raise  the  age  of  consent.  Phulmani’s  case  silenced \nthe  opposition  among  those  who  had  opposed  any  legislative \nintervention  as  a  colonial  interference  in  the  private  sphere  and \npractices.55 The death of Phulmani also cut through the lethargy of \na colonial bureaucracy which was reluctant to intervene in matters \nof religion.56 The law member of the Viceroy’s Legislative  Council, \nAndrew Scoble, prominently used Phulmani’s case to advocate for \nraising the age of consent by enacting his Bill, namely, the Age of \nConsent Bill. The Bill was an amendment to the IPC and raised the \nage of consent from ten years to twelve years. The Age of Consent \nAct  was  passed  in  1891. The  marital  rape  exception  had  come  to \nthe defence of Hari. Raising the age of consent by two years meant \nthat any sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of twelve would \nbe statutory rape regardless of the marital status of the aggressor \nwith the victim. \n\nB.  Regulating the age of marriage\n\n29. \n\nIn 1921, the League of Nations held a conference on the trafficking \nof women and recommended raising the age of consent to twenty-\none years for girls. In 1922, Bakshi Sohanlal unsuccessfully tried to \nraise the age of consent to 14 by introducing a Bill. Bills that sought \nto raise the age of consent were introduced and thrown out regularly \nfor five years thereafter. Among these bills was an Age of Marriage \nBill which was sought to be introduced by Ranglal Jajodia in 1924 \nin  the  Legislative Assembly.57  The  Bill  prescribed  a  minimum  age \nbefore which no marriage could take place. This was a shift from the \n\n55  Ratna Kapur & Brenda Cossman (1996). Subversive Sites: Feminist Engagements with Law in India.\nSage  Publications  49-50;  Charles  H.  Heimsath  (1964).  Indian  Nationalism  and  Hindu  Social  Reform.\nPrinceton University Press 163-165.\n\n56 \n\n57 \n\nIshita Pande (2020). Sex, Law, and the Politics of Age Child Marriage in India, 1891–1937. Cambridge \nUniversity Press 32.\n\nJoshi  Committee  Report,  15;  Also  see  Tahir  Mahmood  (1980).  Marriage  Age  in  India  and  Abroad  –  \nA Comparative Aspect. Journal of Indian Law Institute 22, 41.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1544 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\napproach taken by other reformers and legislators of not interfering \nwith the age of marriage but to merely protect girls from forced sex \nby raising the age of consent in penal laws. While this Bill was never \nintroduced, a similar Bill was introduced by Haribilas Sarda in 1927 \nafter another failed attempt to raise the age of consent by Hari Singh \nGour. The ‘Sarda Bill’ was circulated widely to attract opinions. The \nSelect Committee altered various provisions, and the Government \neventually  appointed  the  Age  of  Consent  Committee  under  the \nchairmanship of MV Joshi. The consideration of the Sarda Bill was \npostponed till the report of the Joshi Committee was received.58\n\n30.  The  terms  of  reference  of  the  Joshi  Committee  did  not  include \nthe  examination  of  the  age  of  marriage.  However,  the  committee \nfound it impossible to delink the question of marriage age with the \nquestion of age of consent for cohabitation.59 The committee heard \nover twelve hundred oral witnesses out of which one hundred and \nthirty four witnesses strongly opposed any law regulating the age of \nmarriage. The committee submitted its report dated 20 June 1929. It \nrecommended that the age of consent be raised to fifteen years under \npenal  statutes  as  well  as  the  enactment  of  a  law  which  penalizes \nmarriage below the age of fourteen years.60 The committee was of \nthe opinion that it would be easier to regulate the age of marriage \nby law than to regulate the consummation of marriage after it had \nalready taken place. The committee reasoned that marriage was an \nact of public knowledge and many persons had a chance to notice \nthe age of the couple. Its visibility would allow for its regulation. It was \nalso thought that regulating marriages would avoid the irritation that \nwould follow from the strict regulatory interference of consummation \nwithin a marital union.61\n\n31.  After much debate, the Sarda Bill was enacted as the Child Marriage \nRestraint Act 1929 and received the assent of the Governor-General \non  1  October  1929  and  was  to  come  into  force  on  1 April  1930 \nthroughout  British  India.  The Act  applied  to  all  religions.  The Act \ncontinued to govern the law on the age of marriage till Parliament \nenacted the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006. \n\n58 \n\n59 \n\n60 \n\n61 \n\nJoshi Committee Report, 8.\n\nIbid, 8.\n\nIbid, 196. \n\nIbid, 174, para 379.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1545\n\nC.  The Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929\n\n32.  The  law  in  colonial  times  had  cast  a  male  gaze  upon  the  women \nand  girls  of  India.  It  did  so  by  making  women  the  object  of  the \nlegislation  but  never  its  spectator.  Women  and  their  bodies  were \nmade  a  subject  of  legislation  without  any  meaningful  attempt  to \nattract the perspectives of women, their experiences or their desires. \nThe law did not concern itself with issues of autonomy, agency and \nindividualised  dignity of a woman. This had been manifested  from \nthe days of the reform movement on the age of consent laws. As Dr \nJaya Sagade argues in her book Child Marriage in India: Socio-legal \nand Human Rights Dimensions, the law on consent was nailed purely \nto the physical capability of women and alien from their aspirations \nor choices. She states that:\n\n“It  is  unfortunate  that  all  opinions  agreed  on  a  definition \nof consent that was nailed to a purely physical capability, \nentirely dissociated from free issues like choice of partner, \nsexual, emotional, or mental compatibility or other social \nconsiderations  such  as  the  girl’s  personal  development. \nConsent was made into a biological category, a stage when \nthe female body was ready to accept sexual penetration \nwithout serious harm. The only difference lay in when this \nstage was reached.”62\n\n33.  The  Child  Marriage  Restraint Act  192963  was  a  first  to  cover  all \nchildren – male and female – within its gamut. The age of consent \nlaws was enacted through a clause in the penal rape statutes which \nonly sought to legislate on girls. The CMRA on the other hand was \napplicable to both boys and girls. \n\n34.  Section 2(a) of the CMRA stipulated that a “child” means a person \nwho, if male, is below the age of eighteen, and if female, is below \nthe age of fourteen. Section 2(d) defined a “minor” to be any person \nbelow the age of eighteen. All marriages in which either of the parties \nwas a ‘child’ under Section 2(a) was stipulated to be a “child marriage” \nunder Section 2(b). The CMRA stipulated that child marriage is an \noffence punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to \n\n62 \n\nJaya  Sagade.  Child  Marriage  in  India:  Socio-legal  and  human  Rights  Dimensions.  Oxford  University \nPress, 2nd ed. (2012) 41.\n\n63 \n\n‘CMRA’\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1546 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\none month or a fine of one thousand rupees or both. Grooms between \nthe ages of eighteen and twenty-one were to be punished only with \na fine and no imprisonment could be awarded to them. The CMRA \noriginally did not allow for the punishment of a ‘child’ for the offence \nof child marriage. The Act only penalised child marriages which had \nalready taken place. However, it did not stipulate any provision for \nthe prevention of child marriage. \n\n35. \n\nIn 1938, the CMRA was amended to stipulate that a court may issue \nan injunction prohibiting a child marriage from taking place. However, \nbefore issuing such an injunction, the court was required to give prior \nnotice to the person sought to be injuncted as well as an opportunity \nto show cause against the issuance of the injunction.64 The CMRA \nfurther underwent substantive amendments in 1949. \n\n36.  The amendment increased the age for a girl child to fifteen years and \nincreased penalties for all categories of offenders. A chart of all the \npenalties under the CMRA and its amendments is produced below:\n\nOffender\n\nPenalty under the\n\nGroom  between  the \nages of 18-21\n\nOriginal CMRA\n\n1949 Amendment\n\nFine of upto Rs 1,000/- Simple  imprisonment \nupto  15  days  or/and  a \nfine upto Rs 1,000/-\n\nGroom  above  the  age \nof 21\n\nSimple  imprisonment \nupto 1 month or/and fine \nupto Rs 1,000/-\n\nSimple  imprisonment \nupto 3 months and fine\n\nOne  who  knowingly \nperforms,  conducts  or \ndirects child marriage\n\nSimple  imprisonment \nupto 1 month or/and fine \nupto Rs 1,000/-\n\nSimple  imprisonment \nupto 3 months and fine\n\nO n e   w h o ,   b e i n g   i n \ncharge  of  a  minor  – \npromotes,  permits  or \nfailed to prevent the child \nmarriage\n\nOne  who  knowingly \nviolates  an  injunction \nagainst a child marriage\n\nSimple  imprisonment \nupto 1 month or/and fine \nupto Rs 1,000/-\n\nSimple  imprisonment \nupto 3 months and fine\n\nImprisonment  of  either \ndescription  upto  three \nmonths or/and fine upto \nRs 1,000/-\n\nImprisonment  of  either \ndescription  upto  three \nmonths or/and fine upto \nRs 1,000/-\n\n64  Section 12, CMRA.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1547\n\n37.  None  of  these  offences  were  cognizable  in  nature.  The  offences \nunder  the  CMRA  were  only  made  party  cognizable  through  an \namendment  in  1978. Accordingly,  the  offences  under  the  CMRA \nwere to be treated as cognizable for (i) the purpose of investigation, \nand (ii) for the purpose of matters other than (a) Section 42 of CrPC \nand (b) the arrest of a person without a warrant or without an order \nof the Magistrate. By the same amendment, Parliament also raised \nthe age of marriage to eighteen years for girls and twenty-one years \nfor boys. This time too, legislative intervention was largely animated \nby  a  concern  for  population  control  rather  than  the  autonomy  or \nagency of children. The Statement of Objects and Reasons expressly \nstated the intent behind the amendment. It states as follows:\n\n“Prefatory  Note-Statement  of  Objects  and  Reasons. \nThe Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, was enacted with \na view to prevent child marriages, namely, a marriage to \nwhich either of the contracting parties is under a specified \nage.  Originally,  the  age  limit  for  a  male  was  eighteen \nyears and for a female fourteen years. The age limit was \nsubsequently raised in the case of females from fourteen \nto fifteen by the Amending Act 41 of 1949. Violation of the \nprovisions of the Act is made punishable.\n\n2.⁠\n⁠  The  question  of  increasing  the  minimum  age  of \nmarriage for males and females has been considered \nin the present context when there is an urgent need to \ncheck the growth of population in the country. Such \nincrease of the minimum age of marriage will result in \nlowering the total fertility rate on account of letter span \nof married life. It will also result in more responsible \nparenthood  and  in  better  health  of  the  mother  and \nchild. A Bill introduced for this purpose in the Lok Sabha \non 25th August, 1976, lapsed with the dissolution of the \nLok on 18th January, 1977. The matter has examined in \nall its aspects again.\n\n⁠ The Bill seeks to amend the Child Marriage Restraint \n3.⁠\nAct, 1929, to increase the minimum age of marriage from \nfifteen to sixteen for females and from eighteen to twenty-\none  for  males  and  to  make  consequential  amendments \nin the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Indian Christian \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1548 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nMarriage Act, 1872. It is also being provided that offences \nunder the Child Marriage Restraint Act may be investigated \nupon  by  a  police  officer  under  the  Code  of  Criminal \nProcedure as if it were a cognizable offence. The police \nofficer shall, however, not have the power to arrest without \na warrant or an order of a Magistrate.”\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\n38.  The  CMRA  did  not  stipulate  that  child  marriages  would  be  void, \nvoidable or invalid. It did not affect the validity of child marriages and \ndid not prohibit the marriage of a girl to an old man. This remained \nunchanged  till  Parliament  repealed  the  CMRA  and  enacted  the \nProhibition of Child Marriage Act 2006.\n\nV.  Contemporary legal framework\n\nA.  The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006\n\n39.  The  National  Commission  for  Women65  in  its  annual  report  for \nthe  year  1995-1996  proposed  to  amend  the  CMRA.  It  proposed \nthat  (i)  the  government  should  appoint  Child  Marriage  Prevention \nOfficers;  (ii)  punishments  under  CMRA  be  made  more  stringent;  \n(iii)  child  marriages  be  declared  void;  (iv)  a  penal  obligation  be \nimposed on anyone attending a child marriage; and (v)all offences \nunder the CMRA must be made cognizable without any qualification.66 \nThe  NCW  further  recommended  that  systematic  efforts  to  spread \nawareness about the evils of child marriage be carried out.67\n\n40. \n\nIn  2001-2002,  the  National  Human  Rights  Commission68  released \nits  annual  report  which  inter  alia  reviewed  the  CMRA.  The  NHRC \nproposed certain amendments to the CMRA to (i) provide for higher \npenalties  for  violation  of  the  CMRA;  (ii)  stipulate  action  against \norganisers or associations who organise child marriages at a mass \nscale; (iii) make child marriages voidable at the instance of the minor \nparty  within  two  years  of  the  party  attaining  the  age  of  majority;   \n\n65 \n\n‘NCW’\n\n66  Annual Report 1995-1996, National Commission for Women, 3.\n\n67  Annual Report 1995-1996, National Commission for Women, 3.\n\n68 \n\n‘NHRC’\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1549\n\n(iv)  provide  for  the  maintenance  of  a  minor  girl  by  her  husband \nor guardian till she remarries; and (v) stipulate for the return of all \ndowry and gifts exchanged during the child marriage.69 The report \nalso stressed on the need to initiate social action by networking with \nNGOs in the areas where child marriages were prevalent in order to \nsensitize community leaders against such marriages.70\n\n41.  On the basis of the two reports, the Government of India consulted \nthe  States  and  the  Union  Territories. Accordingly,  the  Parliament \ndecided to repeal the CMRA and enact the PCMA. The Statement \nof Objects and Reasons of the PCMA stated the salient features of \nthe Act as follows:\n\n“4. The salient features of the Bill are as follows:– \n\n(i)  To  make  a  provision  to  declare  child  marriage  as \nvoidable at the option of the contracting party to the \nmarriage, who was a child.\n\n(ii)  To provide a provision requiring the husband or, if he \nis a minor at the material time, his guardian to pay \nmaintenance to the minor girl until her remarriage.\n\n(iii)  To make a provision for the custody and maintenance \n\nof children born of child marriages\n\n(iv)  To  provide  that  notwithstanding  a  child  marriage \nhas  been  annulled  by  a  decree  of  nullity  under \nthe  proposed  section  3,  every  child  born  of  such \nmarriage, whether before or after the commencement \nof the proposed legislation, shall be legitimate for all \npurposes.\n\n(v)  To  empower  the  district  court  to  add  to,  modify  or \nrevoke  any  order  relating  to  maintenance  of  the \nfemale petitioner and her residence and custody or \nmaintenance of children, etc.\n\n(vi)  To make a provision for declaring the child marriage \n\nas void in certain circumstances.\n\n69  Annual Report 2001-2002, National Human Rights Commission, 50-51, 336-348.\n\n70  Annual Report 2001-2002, National Human Rights Commission, 51.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1550 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n(vii)  To empower the courts to issue injunctions prohibiting \nsolemnisation  of  marriages  in  contravention  of  the \nprovisions of the proposed legislation.\n\n(viii)  To make the offences under the proposed legislation \nto  be  cognizable  for  the  purposes  of  investigation \nand for other purposes.\n\n(ix)  To  provide  for  appointment  of  Child  Marriage \nPrevention Officers by the State Government.\n\n(x)  To empower the State Governments to make rules \n\nfor effective administration of the legislation.\n\n5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.”\n\n42.  The  PCMA  retained  the  age  of  marriage  as  twenty-one  for  males \nand eighteen for females.71 The Act provides for governing parties \nto a child marriage after its commission, punitive measures against \noffenders  of  the  Act  as  well  as  provisions  for  the  prevention  of \nchild marriage. We shall analyse the scheme of the PCMA in three \nparts. In Part i, we shall analyse the provisions that seek to protect \nwomen married as girls as well as children born in child marriages \n(Sections  3  to  8  of  the  PCMA).  Having  analysed  the  remedies  of \nparties upon the commission of a child marriage, we shall analyse \nthe provisions which penalise the commission of child marriages in \nPart ii. Lastly, in Part iii we shall analyse the provisions which are \naimed at preventing child marriages. \n\ni. \n\nRecourse  to  the  wedded:  maintenance,  residence  and \ncustody\n\n43.  The  PCMA  prescribes  that  a  petition  under  the Act  may  be  filed \nbefore  a  district  court  having  jurisdiction  over  the  place  where  \n(i) the defendant resides; or (ii) the child resides; or (iii) the marriage \nwas solemnized; or (iv) the parties last resided together; or (v) the \npetitioner  is  residing  at  the  time  of  filing  the  petition.  Such  a  court \nshall have jurisdiction to deal and decree the following reliefs:\n\n(i) \n\nto annul the marriage and issue a decree of nullity under Section \n3 of the PCMA;\n\n71  Section 2(a), PCMA.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1551\n\n(ii) \n\nto  provide  for  maintenance  and  residence  to  the  female \ncontracting party to a child marriage under Section 4; and \n\n(iii) \n\nfor the custody and maintenance of children of a child marriage \nunder Section 5.\n\n44.  The  PCMA  diverges  from  the  CMRA  in  its  approach  towards  the \nvalidity  of  child  marriages  as  well  as  its  enforcement.  The  PCMA \nprescribes  that  a  child  marriage  is  voidable  at  the  instance  of  the \ncontracting  party  who  was  a  child  at  the  time  of  the  marriage.72 \nSection 3 stipulates that a petition for annulling a child marriage by a \ndecree of nullity may be filed before the district court. Such a person \nmust exercise the right to file the petition within two years of attaining \nthe age of majority.73 In case the party is still a minor, the petition may \nbe filed by their guardians or next friend along with the CMPO.74 In \naddition to entitling the minor contracting party to a child marriage \nto a decree of nullity, it also requires the district court to direct both \nparties  to  the  marriage  to  return  all  money,  valuables,  ornaments \nand  other  articles  exchanged  as  gifts  at  the  time  of  marriage.75  In \ndoing so, the district court must afford an opportunity to the parties \nagainst whom the order of returning gifts is made.76\n\n45.  The  PCMA  further  empowers  the  district  court  to  provide  for  the \nmaintenance  and  residence  of  the  female  contracting  party  to  the \nchild marriage. The court may pass an interim or final order directing \nthe grant of maintenance to the female contracting party by the male \ncontracting party.77 Where the male contracting party is a minor, the \ncourt may issue a direction to his parents or guardians to maintain \nthe female contracting party.78 The court may grant such a relief till \nthe female contracting party remarries.79 In computing the amount of \nmaintenance, the court shall have regard to the needs of the child, \nthe lifestyle enjoyed by the child during marriage and the means of \n\n72  Section 3, PCMA. \n\n73  Section 3(3), PCMA. \n\n74  Section 3(2), PCMA. \n\n75  Section 3(4), PCMA. \n\n76  Section 3(4), PCMA.\n\n77  Section 4(1), PCMA. \n\n78  Section 4(1), PCMA.\n\n79  Section 4(1), PCMA.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1552 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nincome of the paying party.80 Clause (4) of Section 4 empowers the \ndistrict court to make a suitable order for the residence of the female \ncontracting party to a child marriage who files an annulment petition. \n\n46.  Section 5 of the PCMA provides for the custody and maintenance of \nchildren of child marriages. The PCMA is oriented on the universal \nprincipal of child law, which is that the welfare and beneficial interest \nof the child has to be paramount. The provision governs the custody \nof the child, the visitation rights of parents as well as the maintenance \nof a child born from a child marriage. The district court is empowered \nto  make  an  order  as  to  the  custody  of  a  child  born  from  a  child \nmarriage81 keeping in mind the welfare and best interest of the child.82 \nThe court may also pass an order granting the other party access \nto the child in a manner that serves its best interest.83 The child or \nits parents or guardians may also be awarded maintenance by the \ncourt.84 Therefore, the PCMA has sought to ensure the upkeep and \nprotection of women and children in families which emerge from a \nchild marriage. \n\n47.  One  of  the  critiques  against  rendering  child  marriages  void  is  that \nwomen and children would lose the protective shield of the law, which \naccrues to them under a valid marriage. The PCMA has repelled this \ncriticism by specifically providing for the maintenance of women and \nchildren in a child marriage notwithstanding a decree of nullity being \ngranted under Section 3 of the Act. The Act further protects a child \nborn from a child marriage by declaring that such a child, begotten \nor conceived of a child marriage, shall be deemed legitimate for all \npurposes under the law.85\n\n48.  The maintenance of women and children has been a feature of our \nfamily laws. It recognises the inherent maldistribution of economic \nresources and life opportunities between men and women. It further \nrecognises the innocence of the children who end up in broken families \ndue to no fault of theirs. The status of these universally recognised \nvulnerable persons is further made tragic in a child marriage because \n\n80  Section 4(2), PCMA.\n\n81  Section 5(1), PCMA.\n\n82  Section 5(2), PCMA.\n\n83  Section 5(3), PCMA.\n\n84  Section 5(4), PCMA.\n\n85  Section 6, PCMA.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1553\n\n49. \n\nall child marriages are forced marriages. Children are made to enter \ninto matrimony before arriving at the age of intelligent consent and \nare  often  unaware  of  the  responsibilities,  duties  and  rights  which \naccrue  to  members  of  the  marital  union  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  as \nwell  as  society.  When  the  party  to  a  child  marriage  ends  up  in  a \nsituation  which  is  not  oftheir  making,  the  vulnerability  of  the  child \nborn from such marriage is heightened. \n\nIn Union of India v. VR Tripathi,86 a two-Judge Bench of this Court \nspeaking through one of us (DY Chandrachud, J) has opined that the \nlegitimacy of a child is a matter of the dignity of the child. When the \nlaw recognises a child as legitimate, it aims to shield the child from \nthe legal fallout of illegitimacy as well as the social stigma attached \nto  illegitimate  children.  It  is  impermissible  to  treat  children  of  void \nmarriages,  who  are  statutorily  legitimate,  as  illegitimate.  Section  6 \nof  the  PCMA  therefore  serves  to  afford  dignity  to  children  born  to \nparents who had entered into a child marriage. A decree of nullity \nof marriage passed under Section 3 shall not affect the legitimacy \nof the child born from such a marriage. \n\n50.  Section 7 of the PCMA allows the district court to add to, modify or \nrevoke any order which it passes on the maintenance, residency of \nthe woman or the custody and maintenance of the child born from \na child marriage based on change in circumstances. Such a change \nin the order of the court may be made at any time, either during the \npendency of the petition or after it has been disposed of. \n\n51.  These  provisions  seek  to  safeguard  the  interest  of  the  vulnerable \nstakeholders involved in a child marriage, namely, a child bride and \nany child born from a child marriage. Parliament, having safeguarded \nthese  rights  has  further  stipulated  punishments  for  violation  of  the \nPCMA and solemnization of child marriages.\n\nii.  Penalties for child marriage\n\n52.  The  PCMA  prescribes  punishment  for  three  classes  of  persons, \nnamely,  (i)  an  adult  groom  in  a  child  marriage,87  (ii)  persons \ninvolved  in  the  solemnization  of  child  marriage88  and  (iii)  persons \n\n86 \n\n(2019) 14 SCC 646.\n\n87  Section 9, PCMA.\n\n88  Section 10, PCMA.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1554 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nwho  promote  or  permit  the  solemnization  of  child  marriage.89  The \nmaximum  punishment  prescribed  for  all  three  classes  is  rigorous \nimprisonment  of  two  years  and  a  fine  of  rupees  one  lakh.  Unlike \nmany social legislations, the PCMA does not prescribe a mandatory \nminimum punishment for committing an offence under the Act. The \neffect of this is that a judge would be at liberty to nominally punish \nthe accused who are convicted under the Act. The non-prescription \nof a minimum mandatory sentence has led to ineffective enforcement \nof the PCMA. \n\n53.  Section 15 of the PCMA stipulates that all offences under the Act are \ncognizable and non-bailable. This is a deviation from CMRA which \ninitially did not make the offence of child marriage cognizable. The \neffect of this was to make the prevention of child marriage entirely \ncontingent on the private initiative of citizens to file a complaint before \nthe magistrate and be examined under oath. The CMRA also initially \nrequired a security bond to be executed by the complainant to sustain \ntheir bona fides. This requirement made the enforcement of the Act \nillusory.  The  requirement  of  executing  a  mandatory  security  bond \nwas eliminated by the Child Marriage Restraint (Second Amendment) \nAct 1938. The offences under the CMRA were further made partially \ncognizable  through  an  amendment  in  1978.  Section  15  of  PCMA \nis therefore a welcome step which aims to better enforce the Act. \n\n54.  Section  9  of  the  PCMA  prescribes  that  a  man  above  the  age  of \neighteen, who enters into a marriage with a minor girl is liable to be \npunished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years or \nwith a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or both. The court is \naccordingly empowered to penalise an accused under Section 9 with \nimprisonment or a fine or both. The court is at liberty to exercise its \noptions of imposing punishment based on the gravity of the offence, \nthe  circumstance  of  the  marriage  and  the  socio- economic  power \nof  the  male  over  his  child  bride.  In  many  instances,  the  marriage \nbetween  a  child  bride  and  aged  groom  occurs  at  the  instance  of \nthe  groom  incentivising  the  family  of  the  girl  to  marry  her  off. The \nprovision deals with such situations but also recognises the relative \nlack of involvement of a man who may be a young adult and enters \ninto matrimony with a minor. The option of imprisonment and fine is \n\n89  Section 11, PCMA.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1555\n\na deviation from the other two penal provisions in the PCMA which \nmandate  both,  a  fine  and  imprisonment,  to  be  imposed  on  guilty \nconvicts. The rationale of this option is to allow the judge a degree \nof latitude in assessing the culpability of the groom under Section 9 \nand impose a proportionate criminal sentence.\n\n55.  Despite the age of majority for a man to enter into a marriage being \nprescribed as twenty-one under Section 2(a) of the Act, his criminal \nliability for entering into a child marriage with a minor woman begins \nat eighteen. Therefore, two positions of law emerge from Section 9. \nFirst, a woman, regardless of her age is not liable for entering into \na  child  marriage.  Second,  a  man  above  the  age  of  eighteen  but \nunder the age of twenty one is liable for marrying a girl who is under \nthe age of eighteen. The legislative intent behind making a groom \nliable for entering child marriage is to recognise the relative control \nof the agency that a groom may have in relation to his marriage as \nopposed to a girl.\n\n56. \n\nIn Hardev Singh v. Harpreet Kaur90 the appellant was under the \nage of twenty-one and had married a woman who was twenty-three \nyears old. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed an FIR \nto be registered under Section 9 of the PCMA against the wife for \nentering  into  a  marriage  with  a  man  who  was  a  minor  under  the \nPCMA. A  two-Judge  bench  of  this  Court  set  aside  the  judgment \nof the High Court and held that the PCMA does not prescribe any \npunishment  for  an  adult  woman  who  marries  a  male  child.  This \nCourt  held  that  the Act  recognises  women  as  a  vulnerable  class \nand seeks to punish adult men who marry child brides. The Court \nfurther  rejected  the  literal  interpretation  of  Section  9  which  would \nmake  a  man  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  twenty  one  who \nmarries an adult woman liable for child marriage. Therefore, no child \nas defined in Section 2(a) of the PCMA is liable under Section 9 for \nmarrying an adult person.\n\n57.  Section 10 of PCMA stipulates that a person who performs, conducts, \ndirects or abets any child marriage shall be punished with rigorous \nimprisonment which may extend to two years and shall be liable to \na fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. The provision, unlike \n\n90 \n\n[2019] 14 SCR 120 : (2020) 19 SCC 504\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1556 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nSection 9, does not allow the court to choose the option of imposing a \nfine or sentencing a term of imprisonment or both. A court adjudicating \nunder Section 10 is mandated to impose a sentence of imprisonment \nas well as impose a fine.\n\n58.  The  provision  is  expansive  and  would  govern  any  accomplice  to \nthe commission of child marriage. This would include the priest who \nperforms  the  marriage,  any  family  member,  relative  or  person  at \nwhose  direction  the  marriage  takes  place  or  anyone  who  abets  it. \nThe provision stipulates a defence available to any accused under \nSection  10  which  is  that  a  person  must  demonstrate  that  he  had \nreasonable  belief  that  the  marriage  was  not  a  child  marriage. The \ninbuilt defence stipulated in the provision is to safeguard any person \nwho may unwittingly become a part of the commission of the offence \nof child marriage. \n\n59.  Section 11 of the PCMA is a catchall provision against the promotion \nor permitting of child marriage by those in charge of a minor party \nto the marriage. The provision reads as follows:\n\n“11.  Punishment  for  promoting  or  permitting \nsolemnisation of child marriages.—\n\n(1) Where a child contracts a child marriage, any person \nhaving charge of the child, whether as parent or guardian \nor  any  other  person  or  in  any  other  capacity,  lawful  or \nunlawful,  including  any  member  of  an  organisation  or \nassociation of persons who does any act to promote the \nmarriage or permits it to be solemnised, or negligently fails \nto prevent it from being solemnised, including attending or \nparticipating in a child marriage, shall be punishable with \nrigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and \nshall  also  be  liable  to  fine  which  may  extend  up  to  one \nlakh rupees: Provided that no woman shall be punishable \nwith imprisonment. \n\n(2) For the purposes of this section, it shall be presumed, \nunless and until the contrary is proved, that where a minor \nchild has contracted a marriage, the person having charge \nof  such  minor  child  has  negligently  failed  to  prevent  the \nmarriage from being solemnised.”\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1557\n\n60.  Section  11  stipulates  that  any  person  having  charge  of  the  child– \nwho promotes or permits a child marriage or fails to prevent it – is \nliable to rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and \na fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Similar to the provision \nunder Section 10 of the PCMA, Section 11 also prescribes a mandate \nto  the  sentencing  court  to  impose  a  sentence  of  imprisonment  as \nwell as a fine. The provision uses the word ‘and’ between the two \npunishments and the judge does not have the liberty to pick a certain \npunishment  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other. The  person  liable  under \nSection 11 may be the parents of the child or a guardian or any other \nperson or organisation. Further, the means by which a person may \nhave the charge of the child is immaterial as the provision stipulates \nthat  the  charge  may  be  ‘lawful  or  unlawful’.  The  section  seeks  to \npenalise any person or organisation involved in a child marriage. Its \nexpansive scope allows for the prosecution of any person who may \nhave unlawfully taken the custody of a child and thereafter promoted, \npermitted  or  failed  to  prevent  the  child  marriage.  Section  11  also \ndeals with organisations, such as orphanages or schools or hostels, \nwhich may have the charge of a child and under whose watch the \nchild is married off. \n\n61.  The intention of the provision is to place an obligation on any person \nwho  has  the  charge  of  a  child  to  ensure  that  the  offence  of  child \nmarriage  is  not  committed.  The  provision  not  only  penalises  the \nactive participation of the person having charge of a child but also \npenalises the omission on the part of such a person to prevent child \nmarriage. The provision recognises that children lack the ability to \nform intelligent consent and may not necessarily know the full ambit \nof the activity which they are about to commit. Further, children may \nlack the ability and grit to defend themselves and refuse to participate \nin the marriage against the pleasure of their custodians or parents. \n\n62.  Clause (2) of Section 11 raises a presumption. It stipulates that any \nperson, who is in charge of a child who was married off, is presumed to \nhave negligently failed to prevent the child marriage. The presumption \nis a rebuttable one and may be defended if the person proves that \nhe could not have prevented the marriage or failed at preventing it, \nhaving tried to do so to the best of their ability. This principle is only \napplicable to an offence under Section 11. \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1558 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n63.  Having  stipulated  penal  provisions  for  the  commission  of  child \nmarriage in Sections 9, 10 and 11, the PCMA further stipulates that \nany child marriage which occurs as a result of another criminal act \nis void ab initio.91 Section 12 stipulates three instances in which the \nmarriage  of  a  child  is  null  and  void. These  instances  are  where  a \nminor child – \n\n(i) \n\nis taken or enticed out of the keeping of the lawful guardian;92 or\n\n(ii)  compelled  by  force  or  by  any  deceitful  means  induced  to  go \n\nfrom any place;93 or\n\n(iii) \n\nis sold for the purpose of marriage; and made to go through a \nform of marriage or if the minor is married after which the minor \nis sold or trafficked or used for immoral purposes.94\n\n64.  Section 12 provides that the marriage in these instances is non est in \nlaw and has no legal standing from its inception. The declaration of \nthe provision is mandatory and removes the option from the hands of \nthe party to consent to the marriage after its commission. Therefore, \nall marriages done by taking or enticing a child, compelling by force \nor  deceit  or  selling  are  void.  Section  12(c)  further  stipulates  that \nwhere a child marriage occurs and after the marriage, the minor is \nsold or trafficked or used for immoral purposes is void. Therefore, \neven  when  the  commission  of  marriage  was  not  through  force  or \ndeceit the marriage would be void from the inception based on the \nacts performed after the marriage takes place. \n\niii. \n\n Preventive measures under the PCMA\n\n65.  The  PCMA  seeks  to  eliminate  child  marriages  by  deterrence  and \nprevention. The Act designed the preventive measures in two ways, \ni.e.,  (i)  by  an  injunction  against  the  commission  of  child  marriage, \nand (ii) by the appointment of CMPOs. We shall analyse the scheme \nof the PCMA in regard to both of these aspects below.\n\n91  Section 12, PCMA.\n\n92  Section 12(a), PCMA.\n\n93  Section 12(b), PCMA.\n\n94  Section 12(c), PCMA.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1559\n\nInjunctions against child marriage\n\n66.  Sections 13 and 14 of the PCMA deal with injunctions against child \n\nmarriage. Section 13 reads as follows:\n\n“13.  Power  of  court  to  issue  injunction  prohibiting \nchild marriages.—\n\n(1)  Notwithstanding  anything  to  the  contrary  contained \nin  this Act,  if,  on  an  application  of  the  Child  Marriage \nProhibition  Officer  or  on  receipt  of  information  through \na  complaint  or  otherwise  from  any  person,  a  Judicial \nMagistrate of the first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate \nis  satisfied  that  a  child  marriage  in  contravention  of  this \nAct has been arranged or is about to be solemnised, such \nMagistrate  shall  issue  an  injunction  against  any  person \nincluding a member of an organisation or an association \nof persons prohibiting such marriage. \n\n(2) A complaint under sub-section (1) may be made by any \nperson having personal knowledge or reason to believe, \nand a non-governmental organisation having reasonable \ninformation,  relating  to  the  likelihood  of  taking  place  of \nsolemnisation of a child marriage or child marriages. \n\n(3)  The  Court  of  the  Judicial  Magistrate  of  the  first \nclass  or  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate  may  also  take  suo \nmotu  cognizance  on  the  basis  of  any  reliable  report  or \ninformation.\n\n(4)  For  the  purposes  of  preventing  solemnisation  of \nmass child marriages on certain days such as Akshaya \nTrutiya, the District Magistrate shall be deemed to be the \nChild Marriage Prohibition Officer with all powers as are \nconferred  on  a  Child  Marriage  Prohibition  Officer  by  or \nunder this Act. \n\n(5) The District Magistrate shall also have additional powers \nto  stop  or  prevent  solemnisation  of  child  marriages  and \nfor  this  purpose,  he  may  take  all  appropriate  measures \nand use the minimum force required. \n\n(6)  No  injunction  under  sub-section  (1)  shall  be  issued \nagainst  any  person  or  member  of  any  organisation  or \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1560 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nassociation  of  persons  unless  the  Court  has  previously \ngiven notice to such person, members of the organisation \nor association of persons, as the case may be, and has \noffered him or them an opportunity to show cause against \nthe issue of the injunction: \n\nProvided that in the case of any urgency, the Court shall \nhave the power to issue an interim injunction without giving \nany notice under this section. \n\n(7) An  injunction  issued  under  sub-section  (1)  may  be \nconfirmed or vacated after giving notice and hearing the \nparty against whom the injunction was issued. \n\n(8)  The  Court  may  either  on  its  own  motion  or  on  the \napplication  of  any  person  aggrieved,  rescind  or  alter  an \ninjunction issued under sub-section (1). \n\n(9) Where an application is received under sub-section (1), \nthe  Court  shall  afford  the  applicant  an  early  opportunity \nof appearing before it either in person or by an advocate \nand  if  the  Court,  after  hearing  the  applicant  rejects  the \napplication  wholly  or  in  part,  it  shall  record  in  writing  its \nreasons for so doing.\n\n(10) Whoever knowing that an injunction has been issued \nunder sub-section (1) against him disobeys such injunction \nshall be punishable with imprisonment of either description \nfor a term which may extend to two years or with fine which \nmay extend to one lakh rupees or with both: \n\nProvided  that  no  woman  shall  be  punishable  with \nimprisonment.”\n\n67.  A Judicial Magistrate of the first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate, \nas  the  case  may  be,  is  empowered  to  issue  an  injunction  order  if \nthey are satisfied that a child marriage has been arranged or is about \nto be solemnised.95 The judge may issue such an order based on \ninformation that may be received as a complaint or otherwise. The \nperson who complains to the judge must have personal knowledge \n\n95  Section 13(1), PCMA.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1561\n\nor reason to believe that a child marriage is likely to occur.96 In case \nthe complainant is a non-governmental organisation, they must have \nreasonable information, relating to the likelihood of the taking place of \nor solemnisation of a child marriage or child marriages. The injunction \norder may be issued against any person or association of persons.97 \nHowever, the court must issue notice to such person, members of \nthe organisation or association of persons, as the case may be, and \noffer them an opportunity to show cause against the issuance of an \ninjunction.98 The court may eschew from this requirement only if it \nis expedient or urgent for the court to act, in which case an interim \ninjunction may be issued. \n\n68.  A Judicial Magistrate of the first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate, \nas the case may be, is also empowered to take suo moto cognizance \nof the commission of a child marriage based on a reliable report or \ninformation.99  The  PCMA  also  gives  the  judge  associated  powers \nin  addition  to  the  power  to  issue  an  injunction.  These  include \nthe  power  to  (i)confirm  or  vacate  the  injunction;100  (ii)  rescind  or \nalter  an  injunction;101  and  (iii)  reject  the  application  for  injunction \nwholly  or  in  part  by  a  speaking  order.102  The  punishment  for \ndisobeying  an  injunction  issued  under  Section  13  of  the  PCMA  is  \nimprisonment which may extend to two years or a fine which may \nextend to one lakh rupees or both.103 However, no woman can be \nsentenced  to  imprisonment  for  violating  an  injunction  order  under \nSection  13. Any  marriage  solemnized  in  violation  of  an  injunction \norder  passed  under  the  PCMA  is  void  ab  initio  as  per  Section  14 \nof the PCMA.\n\n69. \n\nIn addition to the power of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class \nor  a  Metropolitan  Magistrate  to  issue  injunctions,  Section  13  also \nstipulates  the  role  of  the  District  Magistrate  in  the  prevention  of \nchild marriages. Clause (4) of Section 13 stipulates that a District \n\n96  Section 13(2), PCMA.\n\n97  Section 13(1), PCMA.\n\n98  Section 13(6), PCMA.\n\n99  Section 13(3), PCMA.\n\n100  Section 13(7), PCMA.\n\n101  Section 13(8), PCMA.\n\n102  Section 13(9), PCMA.\n\n103  Section 13(10), PCMA.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1562 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n70. \n\nMagistrate  is  deemed  to  be  a  CPMO  on  certain  days  to  prevent \nthe  solemnization  of  child  marriages. The  District  Magistrate  may \nexercise  all  the  powers  which  accrue  to  the  CMPO  under  the \nPCMA.104  The  intent  of  empowering  the  District  Magistrate  is  in \nrecognition of the fact that child marriages may take place in higher \nnumbers on certain days. Since many communities in India believe \nthat marriages may be beneficial if conducted on auspicious days, the \nauthorities may preventively earmark these days for the application \nof Clauses (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the PCMA. Clause (5) of the \nPCMA  stipulates  that  the  District  Magistrate  shall  have  additional \npowers to stop or prevent the solemnisation of child marriages, for \nwhich  he  may  take  appropriate  measures  and  use  the  minimum \nforce required.\n\nChild Marriage Prohibition Officers\n\nIn addition to injunctions, the PCMA also prescribes the appointment \nof CMPOs for the prevention of child marriage. One of the primary \ncritiques  of  the  CMRA  was  that  the  law  was  dependent  on  the \nprivate initiative of public-spirited citizens to avoid child marriages. \nThe  offences  under  the  CMRA  were  only  partially  cognizable  and \nits enforcement was met with severe social penalty and the wrath of \nthe two families whose wards were made to tie the knot. The PCMA \nsought to better enforce its provisions by stipulating the appointment \nof  a  CMPO.  Section  2(d)  of  PCMA  defines  a  CMPO  as  an  officer \nappointed by the State Government under Section 16(1) of PCMA. \nSection 16 empowers the State Government to issue a notification in \nthe official gazette appointing a CMPO for the specified jurisdiction. \nUnder  Clause  (2)  of  Section  16  of  PCMA,  the  State  may  also \nrequest a respectable member of the locality with a record in social \nservice  or  an  officer  of  the  Gram  Panchayat  or  Municipality  or  an \nofficer of the Government or any public sector undertaking or a non-\ngovernmental organisation to render assistance to the CMPO. The \nCMPO is mandated to carry out the duties stipulated in Clause (3) \nof Section 16 of PCMA. These duties are as follows:\n\n(i) \n\nto  prevent  solemnisation  of  child  marriages  by  taking  such \naction as he may deem fit;\n\n104  Section 13(4), PCMA.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1563\n\n(ii) \n\n(iii) \n\nto  collect  evidence  for  the  effective  prosecution  of  persons \ncontravening the provisions of the Act;\n\nto advise either individual cases or counsel the residents of the \nlocality generally not to indulge in promoting, helping, aiding or \nallowing the solemnisation of child marriages;\n\n(iv) \n\nto  create  awareness  of  the  evil  which  results  from  child \nmarriages;\n\n(v) \n\nto sensitise the community on the issue of child marriages;\n\n(vi) \n\nto  furnish  such  periodical  returns  and  statistics  as  the  State \nGovernment may direct; and\n\n(vii)  to discharge such other functions and duties as may be assigned \n\nto him by the State Government.\n\n71.  The  CMPO  may  move  the  court  for  an  order  of  (i)  maintenance \nand  residence  of  the  child  bride  under  Section  4;  (ii)  custody  of  a \nchild born from a child marriage under Section 5;and (iii) injunction \nagainst the solemnization of marriage or against the violation of an \ninjunction  under  Section  13.105 Additionally,  the  CMPO  may  move \nthe court along with a child who has been married off for a decree \nof nullity under Section 3 of PCMA.106\n\n72.  The  legislative  intent  behind  the  appointment  of  the  CMPOs  is  to \ndesignate  an  officer  to  take  tailored  action  against  child  marriage \nin  each  district.  The  prevention  of  child  marriage  ensures  that \ncommunities  can  progress  whereas  the  prosecutorial  functions  of \nthe CMPO ensure effective deterrence. \n\n73.  The Petitioner has submitted that the practice widely prevalent is to \nappoint an officer with multifarious duties as the CMPO. The task of the \nCMPO is doled out as an additional task to officers who are already \nburdened with their primary duties. This leads to ineffectiveness and \nallows many child marriages to slip through the cracks. \n\n74.  The  data  provided  by  the  Union  in  its  additional  affidavit  sheds \nlight  on  the  prevalence  of  officers  holding  additional  charges  as \nCMPOs at the district level. In states like Haryana and Chhattisgarh, \n\n105  Section 16(5), PCMA.\n\n106  Section 16(5), PCMA.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1564 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nofficials  such  as  Sub-Divisional  Magistrates107  and  District  Social \nWelfare Officers are appointed as CMPOs but may also hold other \nresponsibilities. \n\n75.  As argued by the Petitioner, the appointment of CMPOs who are \ninundated with other multifarious duties impedes the effectiveness \nof child marriage prevention measures. Officers with multiple duties \nmight  struggle  to  dedicate  sufficient  time  and  resources  to  their \nrole  as  CMPOs,  potentially  hindering  the  effectiveness  of  child \nmarriage  prevention  efforts. The  appointment  of  CMPOs  is  not  a \nmere statutory formality as part of an ornate virtue signalling. These \nofficers are in charge of prosecution of child marriages, counselling \nof stakeholders and spreading awareness and sensitization in the \ncommunity. An effective CMPO must make efforts to find their roots \nin the community, engage with communities and organisations in \nthe area and carry out the painstaking, and sometimes thankless, \ntask  of  reporting  specific  factors  affecting  child  marriages  in  the \ndistrict. We observe that the need for dedicated personnel with a \nfocused mandate to tackle child marriage is crucial to ensure that \nresources  are  utilized  effectively  and  that  the  objectives  of  the \nPCMA are met.\n\n76.  Additionally,  the  level  at  which  CMPOs  are  designated—whether \nat  the  district,  Block,  or  Gram  Panchayat  level—is  also  a  critical \nconcern. For instance, states like Karnataka have appointed 58,522 \nofficers across thirty one districts, and Maharashtra has appointed \n25,562  officers  across  thirty  six  districts,  extending  appointments \ndown to the Gram Panchayat level. Andhra Pradesh has appointed \n16,590 officers from the village or ward level up to the district level, \nincluding  District  Magistrates  at  the  district  level.  However,  Uttar \nPradesh has designated only one CMPO per district, with 75 CMPOs \nfor  seventy-five  districts. Although  high  numbers  of  appointments \nmay  suggest  extensive  coverage,  this  alone  does  not  ensure \neffectiveness unless there are exclusive officers dedicated solely to \nCMPO duties, free from additional responsibilities. For example, at \nthe Gram Panchayat level, Panchayat Secretaries, Village Revenue \nOfficers, and Patwaris are often given CMPO duties in addition to \n\n107 \n\n‘SDM’\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1565\n\ntheir primary roles, which dilutes their ability to focus solely on child \nmarriage prevention.\n\n77.  CMPOs often lack adequate training and are ill-equipped to engage \nsensitively  with  children. A  study  analysing  child  marriage  cases \nfiled  nationwide  between  2008  and  2017  revealed  that  CMPOs \ninitiated only seven percent of these cases, highlighting a significant \ngap  in  proactive  enforcement.108  In  some  instances,  CMPOs \nredirect  complaints  to  other  designated  officers  under  different \nlaws,  such  as  protection  officers  under  the  Domestic  Violence \nAct  2005109  or  the  JJ Act110,  who  then  refer  the  complaints  back \nto the CMPOs. This back-and-forth highlights a need for improved \nclarity  and  streamlined  coordination  in  handling  child  marriage \ncases effectively.\n\n78.  We accordingly hold that, given the significant obligations expected \nto  be  discharged  by  a  dedicated  CMPO,  no  officer  with  other \nresponsibilities  shall  be  appointed  as  the  CMPO.  States  or  UTs \nshall  appoint  exclusive  CMPOs  in  each  district  in  addition  to  any \nCMPOs  already  serving  in  a  dual  capacity,  and  they  shall  equip \nthese  officers  with  adequate  resources  for  the  effective  discharge \nof their functions. If a State or UT concludes that instances of child \nmarriage  have  decreased  to  the  extent  that  appointing  exclusive \nCMPOs  is  no  longer  necessary,  it  may  file  an  application  before \nthis Court, seeking leave to appoint a CMPO who also holds other \nduties at the District level. \n\nB.  The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012\n\n79.  The  Protection  of  Children  from  Sexual  Offences Act  2012111  was \nenacted  by  Parliament  to  safeguard  the  right  of  all  children  to \nsafety, security and protection from sexual abuse and exploitation. \nIt  is  a  self-contained  comprehensive  legislation  for  the  protection  \nof children from sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography.112 \n\n108  Social and Policy Research Foundation. ‘Child and Early Marriage in India, Issue Brief’ (2021) referred \n\nin India Child Protection, Towards Justice: Ending Child Marriages (2024), 21. \n\n109  The Domestic Violence Act, 2005.\n\n110  The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. \n\n111 \n\n‘POCSO Act’\n\n112  Statement of Objects and Reasons, POCSO. \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1566 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nThe  POCSO Act  operates  in  a  manner  which  promotes  the  best \ninterest and well-being of a child and ensures their healthy physical, \nemotional, intellectual and social development.113\n\n80.  The  POCSO Act  applies  to  all  children  regardless  of  their  gender. \nSection 2(d) defines a child as being under the age of eighteen. The \nAct elevates the age of consent to eighteen  years for all persons. \nThe  2013  amendment  to  the  IPC  increased  the  age  of  consent \nunder  the  rape  provision  from  sixteen  to  eighteen.  However,  the \nmarital  rape  exception  to  the  rape  provision  in  Section  375  IPC \ncontinued  to protect men for having  sex with their  minor wives. In \nIndependent Thought (supra) this court removed the inconsistency \nand struck down the exception to the penal provision on rape under \nSection 375 IPC in so far as it related to minors. Further, Subclause \n(vi) of clause (d) of Section 63 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023114 \nprescribes the age of consent to be eighteen years. Section 63 BNS \nis pari materia to Section 375 IPC.\n\n81.  The  principles  of  the  POCSO Act  are  directly  threatened  by  the \ncommission  of  child  marriage.  The  intent  of  the  POCSO Act  is  to \nprotect children from sexual advances. Child marriage on the other \nhand is an institution which puts minor girls directly in harm’s way. \nUnder the POCSO Act, a man is liable to punishment for having sex \nwith  his  minor  wife.  Nevertheless,  the  existence  of  child  marriage \nand  its  continued  recognition  in  the  law  as  a  valid  (and  voidable) \nmarriage  threatens  the  dignity  of  children.  The  institution  of  child \nmarriage, more directly than any other institution, stipulates for the \nsexual abuse of child brides by design. \n\nC.  The  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of  Children) \n\nAct 2015\n\n82.  The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act115 was first \nenacted in 2000 to provide for the protection of children. The legislation \nunderwent amendments in 2006 and 2011. Thereafter, based on the \nrecorded inadequacies of the legislation, Parliament enacted a new \n\n113 \n\nIbid. \n\n114 \n\n‘BNS’\n\n115 \n\n‘JJ Act’\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1567\n\nJJ Act in 2015. The JJ Act was enacted in furtherance of Article 15 \nand Articles  39(e)  and  (f),116  45117  and  47118  of  the  Constitution  to \nensure  the  proper  care,  protection,  development,  treatment  and \nsocial re-integration of children in difficult circumstances. The JJ Act \napplied a child-friendly approach and is premised on the principle of \nthe best interest of the child.\n\n83.  The  JJ  Act  inter  alia  deals  with  children  in  need  of  care  and \nprotection.119  Section  2(14)  defines  CNCP.  Sub-clause  (xii)  of \nSection 2(14) of the JJ Act prescribes that children at imminent risk \nof marriage are CNCP. The provision reads as follows:\n\n“2. Definitions.–In this Act, unless the context otherwise \nrequires,–\n\n…\n\n(14) “child in need of care and protection” means a child–\n\n…\n\n(xii)  who  is  at  imminent  risk  of  marriage  before \nattaining  the  age  of  marriage  and  whose  parents, \nfamily  members,  guardians  and  any  other  persons \nare likely to be responsible for solemnisation of such \nmarriage;”\n\n116 \n\n“39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.— The State shall, in particular, direct its \npolicy towards securing—\n…\n\n(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not \nabused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their \nage or strength; \n(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions \nof freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against \nmoral and material abandonment.”\n\n117 \n\n118 \n\n“45. Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years.— The \nState shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete \nthe age of six years.”\n\n“47.  Duty  of  the  State  to  raise  the  level  of  nutrition  and  the  standard  of  living  and  to  improve \npublic health.— The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living \nof its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the \nState shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of \nintoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”\n\n119 \n\n‘CNCP’\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1568 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n84.  The Act  provides  a  comprehensive  framework  to  deal  with  CNCP. \nSection 27120 of the JJ Act establishes the Child Welfare Committee121 \nto  inter  alia  handle  and  resolve  complaints  in  relation  to  children \nwho are in need of care. The CWC’s role is to ensure the children’s \nbasic needs are met and that they are protected, treated, developed, \nand rehabilitated.\n\n85.  Therefore, children who are married off are required to be produced \nbefore  the  CWC  so  that  they  may  be  rehabilitated  and  taken  care \nof. The JJ Act further provides for the constitution of the State Child \nProtection Society and District Child Protection Unit. Section 106 of the \nJJ Act stipulates that the State shall constitute a State Child Protection \nSociety and a Child Protection Unit in each district. The mandate of \nthe Society and Unit may be prescribed by the State. The constitution \nof these societies and units is to take up matters related to children \nfor  the  implementation  of  the Act  including  inter  alia  notification  of \ncompetent authorities in relation to the children and their rehabilitation \nand  co-ordination  with  various  official  and  non-official  agencies \nconcerned. The society and units therefore have the responsibility to \nidentify needs and engage with stakeholders, official and non-official, \nfor the implementation of the JJ Act. As a beneficial social legislation \naimed at children, the society and units constituted under the JJ Act \nare  required  to  proactively  identify  remedies  and  strategies  for  the \nrehabilitation and protection of victims of child marriages.\n\n120  “27. Child Welfare Committee.– (1) The State Government shall by notification in the Official Gazette \nconstitute  for  every  district,  one  or  more  Child  Welfare  Committees  for  exercising  the  powers  and  to \ndischarge the duties conferred on such Committees in relation to children in need of care and protection \nunder this Act and ensure that induction training and sensitisation of all members of the committee is \nprovided within two months from the date of notification.\n\n(2) The Committee shall consist of a Chairperson, and four other members as the State Government \nmay think fit to appoint, of whom at least one shall be a woman and another, an expert on the matters \nconcerning children.\n(3) The District Child Protection Unit shall provide a Secretary and other staff that may be required \nfor secretarial support to the Committee for its effective functioning.\n…\n(8) The Committee shall submit a report to the District Magistrate in such form as may be prescribed \nand the District Magistrate shall conduct a quarterly review of the functioning of the Committee.\n(9) The Committee shall function as a Bench and shall have the powers conferred by the Code of \nCriminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) on a Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, a Judicial \nMagistrate of First Class.\n(10)  The  District  Magistrate  shall  be  the  grievance  redressal  authority  to  entertain  any  grievance \narising  out  of  the  functioning  of  the  Committee  and  the  affected  child  or  anyone  connected  with \nthe  child,  as  the  case  may  be,  may  file  a  complaint  before  the  District  Magistrate  who  shall  take \ncognizance of the action of the Committee and, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, \npass appropriate order.”\n\n121 \n\n‘CWC’\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1569\n\n86.  Section 107 of the JJ Act further provides for the Child Welfare Police \nOfficers122 and Special Juvenile Police Units.123 It stipulates that at \neach police station, at least one police officer shall be appointed as \nthe  CWPO. The  officer  so  designated  shall  not  be  below  the  rank \nof Assistant Sub-inspector. The appointment of CWPOs is required \nto  be  done  bearing  in  mind  the  aptitude,  appropriate  training  and \norientation of the inspector. The officer so appointed is in charge of \nexclusively  dealing  with  children,  either  as  victims  or  perpetrators, \nand coordinate with the police and voluntary and non-governmental \norganisations.\n\n87. \n\nIn each district, the State governments are mandated to constitute a \nSJPU for effective coordination of all police-related functions related \nto children. The SJPU shall be headed by an officer of the rank of \nDeputy Superintendent of Police or superior. The SJPU shall comprise \nall the CWPOs appointed in each police station throughout the district \nas well as two social workers who have worked on issues relating \nto child rights. At least one of such social workers who is made part \nof the unit shall be a woman. \n\n88.  The JJ Act recognises the inapplicability of standards which accrue \nto  adults.  It  is  intended  to  safeguard  children  and  deal  with  those \namong them who are in conflict with the law. In the context of child \nmarriage,  the  principles  enunciated  in  the  JJ Act  as  well  as  the \nframework  established  under  it  are  vitally  important.  Children  who \nare at risk of marriage at the hands of their family or relatives are \nexpressly  recognised  as  CNCP  under  the Act.  The  JJ Act  further \nprescribes for their protection, rehabilitation and development. While \nvictims  of  child  marriage  are  protected  under  the  JJ Act,  it  further \nstrengthens  the  effort  to  eliminate  child  marriages  by  creating  a \ntrained and skilled force of police officers to deal with children. The \nSJPUs are marked by their unique ability to inject humanity in law \nenforcement.  The  task  of  law  enforcement  officers,  the  police  in \nparticular, has traditionally been associated by the State’s ability to \ncompel  compliance  to  its  norms.  The  formation  of  SJPUs  reflects \na  refreshing  outlook  toward  police  work,  one  which  is  imperative \nin liberal democracies’ treatment of vulnerable groups. Law with a \n\n122 \n\n‘CWPO’\n\n123 \n\n‘SJPU’\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1570 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ntouch  of  humanity  and  law  enforcement  with  a  boost  of  sensitivity \nand empathy are the cornerstone of the law on children. The JJ Act \ntherefore forms an important instrument in the contemporary legal \nframework concerning child marriages in India.\n\nD.  The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005\n\n89.  The  UN  General Assembly  adopted  the  Declaration  on  Survival, \nProtection  and  Development  of  Children  in  1990.  In  1989  the  UN \nadopted  the  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child124  which  India \nratified on 11 December 1992. To implement India’s obligations under \nthese international instruments, Parliament enacted the Commissions \nfor Protection of Child Rights Act 2005.125\n\n90.  The  CPCRA  seeks  to  assure  child  rights  in  two  ways.  Firstly,  it \nestablishes  National  and  State  Commissions  for  the  protection \nof  Child  Rights.126  These  bodies  study,  review,  and  oversee  the \nimplementation  of  child  rights  law  in  India.  Secondly,  the  CPCRA \nestablishes Children’s Courts for providing speedy trial of offences \nagainst children or for violation of child rights.127 Clause (b) of Section 2 \nof CPCRA defines child rights to include the rights stipulated in CRC. \n\n91.  The NCPCR under Section 13 and the State Commissions for the \nProtection of Child Rights under Section 24 of CPCRA are inter alia \nentrusted with performing the function of:\n\n(i) \n\n(ii) \n\n(iii) \n\nexamining and reviewing the safeguards provided by any law \nfor the protection of child rights and recommending measures \nfor their effective implementation;\n\ninquiring into violation of child rights and recommend initiation \nof proceedings in such cases; and\n\ninquiring into complaints and taking suo motu notice of matters \nrelating to,- (a) deprivation and violation of child rights; (b) non-\nimplementation of laws providing for protection and development \nof children; (c) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines \nor  instructions  aimed  at  mitigating  hardships  to  and  ensuring \n\n124 \n\n‘CRC’\n\n125 \n\n‘CPCRA’\n\n126  Sections 3 and 17, CPCRA.\n\n127  Section 25, CPCRA.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1571\n\nwelfare of the children and to provide relief to such children, or \ntake up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate \nauthorities.\n\n92.  The NCPCR and SCPCR serve the roles of review, monitoring and \noversight of the legal framework on child rights in India. While the \nCPCRA enables the two commissions to effectively discharge their \nfunctions  with  appropriate  resources,  the  effective  implementation \nof  the  law  is  contingent  on  pro-active  initiatives  of  the  NCPCR \nand  SCPCRs  and  the  timely  appointment  of  members  to  the  two \ncommissions. The effective implementation of the PCMA also falls \nwithin the subject matter of the NCPCR and SCPCRs. Over time, the \ncommissions have collected data and reviewed the progress of the \nimplementation of the PCMA. The operative directions and guidelines \nthat we  shall  issue in this judgment shall  also stipulate the  further \nand specific role that we envision for the NCPCR and SCPCRs to \nperform in the prevention and elimination of child marriages. \n\n93.  The MWCD and the NCPCR have been actively engaged in raising \nawareness about the negative consequences of child marriage and \nstrengthening  the  enforcement  of  the  PCMA.  In  recent  years,  the \nNCPCR has conducted multiple review meetings and collaborated \nwith a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including District Magistrates, \nCMPOs, CDPOs, CWCs, and Anganwadi Workers.128 These initiatives \nhave aimed to create a coordinated approach to tackling child marriage \nat the grassroots level.\n\n94.  The  NCPCR  has  also  concentrated  on  identifying  children  at  risk \nby  compiling  school-wise  data  on  those  who  have  dropped  out  or \nexhibit  irregular  attendance.  In  2023-2024,  the  NCPCR  identified \n645,673  children  across  India  who  were  either  out  of  school  or  at \nrisk of early marriage. The Commission directed district authorities \nto pinpoint vulnerable children from this list, prevent their marriages, \nand  ensure  proper  rehabilitation  for  those  affected.  While  these \nawareness campaigns and data-driven interventions have been vital, \nit  is  evident  that  awareness  alone  is  not  enough  to  prevent  child \nmarriages effectively. Enforcement of laws, community engagement, \nand support systems for vulnerable children are equally crucial.\n\n128 \n\n ‘AWWs’\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1572 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nE.  The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987\n\n95.  The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 was enacted to constitute \nlegal services authorities at the National, State and District levels to \nprovide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of \nthe society. The constitution of the authorities is aimed at ensuring \nthat opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen \nby reason of economic or other disabilities.\n\n96.  Section 12(c) of the Act stipulates that any child who has to file or \ndefend  a  case  is  entitled  to  legal  services.129  The  Legal  Services \nAuthorities are therefore under an obligation under the Act to assist \nminors  who  file  cases  under  the  PCMA  to  exercise  their  statutory \nrights. The National Legal Services Authority,130 State Legal Services \nAuthority,131 District Legal Services Authorities,132 Taluk Legal Services \nCommittees, High Court Legal Services Committees, and Supreme \nCourt Legal Services Committee have formulated various schemes \nto be followed while they deal with legal services to children.133 We \nshall make further directions in this regard to legal services authorities \nin the operative portion of this judgment.\n\nF.  Policies formulated by the Union Government\n\n97. \n\nIn addition to the legislative apparatus outlined above, the Union has \nsubmitted  that  the  MWCD  proposed  a  National  Strategy  on  Child \nMarriage  on  14  February  2013.  This  strategy  emphasized  linking \nwith Integrated Child Protection Scheme134 structures and statutory \nbodies to ensure early detection and swift referral of cases needing \ncare  and  protection.  One  of  its  strategic  directions  was  to  ensure \nthat children already in child marriages should not face discrimination \nin accessing health, nutrition, education, and employment services. \n\n98.  The  Union  Government  has  also  implemented  several  schemes \naimed  at  empowering  young  girls  and  women,  such  as  Sukanya \nSamridhi  Yojana,  Pradhan  Mantri Awas  Yojana  (Urban  &  Rural), \n\n129 \n\n Section 12(c), The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987,\n\n130 \n\n‘NALSA’\n\n131 \n\n‘SLSA’\n\n132 \n\n‘DLSA’\n\n133  See for example National Legal Services Authority (Child Friendly Legal Services to Children and their \n\nProtection) Scheme, 2024.\n\n134 \n\n‘ICPS’\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1573\n\nPradhan  Mantri  Jan  Dhan  Yojana,  and  Pradhan  Mantri  Matru \nVandana Yojana (PMMVY). These initiatives aim to promote social \nwell-being and to create a supportive environment for young girls. \nComplementing these efforts are programs like Samagra Shiksha, \nthe  National  Overseas  Scholarship  Scheme,  Babu  Jagjivan  Ram \nChhatrawas Yojana, and the Swachh Vidyalaya Mission, which focus \non making schools girl-friendly, particularly for vulnerable sections of \nsociety. The Rajiv Gandhi Scheme for Empowerment of Adolescent \nGirls – SABLA, launched on November 19, 2010,135 in 200 districts, \nfocuses on empowering adolescent girls (aged 11-18) by improving \nnutrition,  health,  and  vocational  skills.  SABLA  provides  nutrition  at \nRs 5 per day for 300 days, iron and folic acid supplementation, health \ncheck-ups, nutrition and health education, family welfare guidance, \nand vocational training for girls aged sixteen and above under the \nNational  Skill  Development  Programme.  It  also  raises  awareness \nabout the importance of marrying at the appropriate age.\n\n99.  To enhance the employability of female workers, the Ministry offers \ntraining through a network of Women’s Industrial Training Institutes, \nNational  Vocational  Training  Institutes,  and  Regional  Vocational \nTraining Institutes. Additionally, the Skill India Mission aims to ensure \neconomic independence for women through skill development. \n\n100. The  Ministry  implements  the  Beti  Bachao  Beti  Padhao  scheme136, \nwhich  specifically  aims  to  address  issues  of  gender  inequality  by \npromoting  the  education  and  welfare  of  girls.  It  targets  high-risk \ndistricts with low child sex ratios and focuses on changing societal \nattitudes  toward  girls  through  awareness  campaigns,  community \nengagement, and promoting girl-friendly educational infrastructure. \nAdditionally, the Union has established CHILDLINE, a 24/7 emergency \noutreach service for children in crisis, which coordinates with police \nand  child  protection  services  to  address  various  issues,  including \nchild marriage prevention. \n\n101. Despite these efforts, there remains a gap in implementing specific, \ntargeted measures focused solely on the prevention of child marriage. \nExisting schemes, while impactful, do not provide sufficient tools to \ntackle child marriage comprehensively. For instance, while training and \n\n135  See Rajiv Gandhi Scheme for Empowerment of Adolescent Girls: Sabla, https://www.india.gov.in/rajiv-\n\ngandhi-scheme-empowerment-adolescent-girls-sabla. \n\n136  See https://www.myscheme.gov.in/schemes/bbbp. \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1574 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\neducational programs are vital, there appears to be a lack of robust \nmechanisms to monitor the long-term outcomes of these initiatives, \nparticularly  in  rural  and  underserved  areas  where  child  marriage \nrates are often high. Additionally, while financial support is essential \nin empowering women, it may not always effectively reach the most \nvulnerable communities. Therefore, we direct that a special scheme \nbe introduced, specifically focusing on skill development, vocational \ntraining, and economic stability for women and girls who choose to \nleave  child  marriages.  This  scheme  should  include  provisions  for \nlegal  aid,  psychological  support,  and  financial  assistance  to  help \nthem transition to a life of self-reliance. \n\nG.  States’ efforts to curb child marriage\n\n102. Each  State  and  UT  in  India  has  introduced  training  programs, \nawareness  initiatives,  and  financial  incentives  as  part  of  a \ncomprehensive  approach  to  enforcing  the  PCMA137.  These  efforts \nencompass  preventive  training,  education,  financial  support,  and \ncommunity-based outreach to discourage child marriage and promote \ngirls’ education and empowerment. Relevant up-to-date data on the \nStates’ efforts to curb child marriage over the last three years has \nbeen  placed  before  this  Court. As  and  by  way  of  illustration,  we \nshall  briefly  provide  an  overview  of  the  efforts  made  in  regard  to \n(i) training schemes, (ii) awareness programs, (iii) financial incentives \nand (iv) other incentives. We shall then analyse the impact of these \nschemes broadly.\n\ni. \n\nTraining schemes\n\n103. Across  India,  States  and  UTs  have  conducted  extensive  training \nprogramsover the past three years to equip officials and communities \nwith the knowledge needed to combat child marriage. States and UTs \nare conducting training programs to equip officials and communities \nwith the knowledge needed to combat child marriage.\n\n104. States  like  Telangana,  Uttar  Pradesh,  Jharkhand,  Gujarat,  and \nChhattisgarh have conducted training and awareness programs for \nfield  workers  through  DCPUs,  providing  critical  information  on  the \nPCMA. Some states have partnered with DWCD&SS and UNICEF, with \n\n137  Additional Affidavit,  Ministry  of  Women  and  Child  Development  (2023). The  data  highlights  the  steps \n\nundertaken by the States in the Past Three Years – 2020 -2023. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1575\n\nsupport from partner organizations, to conduct these training sessions. \nFor instance, Karnataka has established Child Marriage Prohibition \nCells138  under  its  Spoorthi  Yojana139  to  train  staff  in  identifying  and \npreventing child marriages. Additionally, Rs. 12.51 crores have been \nallocated for training Protection Officers and staff in Special Cells for \nwomen and children140. In Haryana, Protection-cum-Prohibition officers \nreceive intensive training and sensitization from experts with support \nfrom  NIPCCCD  and  HIPA.These  initiatives  indicate  a  structured \napproach,  focusing  not  only  on  immediate  prevention  but  also  on \nlong-term societal change by raising awareness and educating local \npopulations about the harms of child marriage.\n\nii.  Awareness programs\n\n105. Awareness initiatives play a vital role in changing societal perceptions \nabout child marriage and promoting girls’ education. In terms of the \nnumber  of  awareness  sessions  over  the  last  year,  most  sessions \nhave  been  reported  by Andhra  Pradesh,  Uttar  Pradesh,  Odisha \nand  Tamil  Nadu.141 Andhra  Pradesh  conducted  37,446  sessions, \nreaching  857,012  participants;  Uttar  Pradesh  conducted  35,377 \nsessions,  reaching  1,248,394  participants;  and  Odisha  conducted \n33,276 sessions covering 30,755 blocks and villages.142 Additionally, \nTamil  Nadu  has  actively  engaged  communities  with  widespread \nawareness programs tailored to local needs.143\n\n106. States  have  deployed  varied  and  unique  measures  in  spreading \nawareness  such  as  leveraging  local  media  to  economically \nempower girls,144 distributing legal informational pamphlets in rural  \n\n138  These cells deal with the administrative Sanction of Spoorthi Yojana, Action Plan, Prohibition of Child \nMarriage Act Systematic Procedure, Coordination and Review Committee, Cell Establishment Details, \nChild Marriage Prohibition Officers Roles and responsibilities and additional CMPOs Orders, Revised \nCommittee  Order  at  Gram  panchayat;  See  details  of  Government  orders  and  guidelines  for  major \nschemes and programs of the Department (2024) https://dwcd.karnataka.gov.in/info-4/Details+of+Gove\nrnment+orders+and+guidelines+for+major+schemes+and+programs+of+the+Department/en. \n\n139  The Scheme was first introduced on a pilot basis, has been successful, and will now be extended to a \nfew more districts. It aims to improve nutritional levels and empower 12- to-18-year adolescent girls in 5 \ndistricts covering 50000 adolescent girls from 11 Special Development Plan Taluks.\n\n140  The State cabinet approved the release of Rs 12.51 crore for ‘Spoorthi scheme’ in 2023.\n\n141  NCCPR, Comprehensive Report of Virtual Review Meetings on Child Marriage with Districts All Over \n\nIndia For 2023-2024 (2024). \n\n142 \n\nIbid. \n\n143 \n\nIbid. \n\n144  Delhi  Ladli  Scheme,  2008  has  been  operational  since  01.01.2009  for  controlling  female  foeticide, \n\nimproving the sex ratio, and empowering girls educationally and financially.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1576 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nareas,145 partnering with NGOs,146 facilitating community meetings,147 \ntargeted awareness programs focusing on high school students and \nschool dropouts,148 and running educational YouTube channels.149\n\n107. This grassroots, multisectoral collaboration is essential, as it leverages \ncommunity-based networks to reach children most at risk, ensuring \nearly intervention and protection against child marriage. It strengthens \ncoordination between state authorities, NGOs, and local stakeholders \nto enhance the impact of these awareness initiatives.\n\niii.  Financial incentives\n\n108. Financial  incentives  play  a  significant  role  in  these  initiatives.  In \nTelangana,  the  Shaadi  Mubarak  and  Kalyana  Lakshmi  schemes \noffer  cash  transfers  to  eligible  families;  for  instance,  families \nreceive a one-time grant of approximately Rs. 1 lakh upon the girl \nreaching  adulthood.150  Chhattisgarh  offers  a  similar  scheme,  the \nNoni Suraksha Yojana, while Bihar’s Kanya Utthaan Yojana provides \nfinancial support of Rs. 25,000 per girl to encourage education and \ndelay marriages and Mantri Vivah Yogana aids families by covering \nmarriage expenses for eligible girls. Madhya Pradesh’s Ladli Lakshmi \nYojana links financial support to educational milestones, offering up \nto  Rs.  6,000  for  completing  certain  grades.151  In Andhra  Pradesh, \n\n145  Haryana  has  engaged  1,855  stakeholders  through  targeted  campaigns,  distributing  over  50,000 \ninformational  pamphlets  in  rural  areas  to  explain  the  legal  ramifications  and  adverse  impacts  of  child \nmarriage;  Similarly, Tamil  Nadu  has  created  thirteen  different  types  of  posters,  with  3,77,585  posters \ndistributed  across  the  state,  and  an  allocation  of  Rs.  50  lakhs  specifically  for  campaigns  in  ten \neconomically disadvantaged districts.\n\n146  Odisha has partnered with NGOs to conduct 1,500 workshops in schools.\n\n147  Assam facilitated community meetings in 200 villages, highlighting the harmful effects of early marriage \n\non health, education, and economic opportunities.\n\n148  Telangana  has  organized  targeted  awareness  programs  aimed  at  identifying  vulnerable  children, \nparticularly with the support of Village Child Protection Committee members. These initiatives focus on \nhigh school students and school dropouts, working in coordination with ICPS, ICDS, ChildLine, Sakhi \nstaff, Anganwadi teachers, ASHA workers, and local Sarpanchs. \n\n149  Tamil Nadu launched an educational YouTube channel and provided 3-6 months of vocational training to \n\nsupport victims of child marriage, equipping them with skills for a better future.\n\n150  The  Government  of  Telangana  launched  the  ‘Kalyana  Lakshmi/Shaadi  Mubarak  scheme  provided  to \nunmarried girls who are above 18 years of age from SC, ST, BC and Minority families (with a combined \nincome of both parents not exceeding Rs. 2,00,000 per annum) at the time of their marriage. \n\n151  This aims to discourage child marriage, eradicate female infanticide, rectify the falling birth rate of girls, \nimprove the health and educational status, curtail inequality and uphold the status of the girl child in the \nsociety. ln this scheme, there is a provision for a final payment of Rs. 1.00 lakh on completion of 21 years \nof age of the girl child, on appearing in class 12th examination birth and on early marriage Instructions \nwere issued for Akshay Tritiya. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1577\n\nthe  Jagananna Amma  Vodi  program  aims  to  improve  the  Gross \nEnrollment  Rate  (GER)  and  promote  higher  education  for  girls. \nRajasthan’s  Mukhyamantri  Kanyadan  Yojana  provides  financial \nassistance to BPL families from SC, ST, and minority communities \nfor the marriages of girls upon reaching 18 years. \n\n109. These financial incentives serve as a powerful tool in reducing child \nmarriage and enhancing girls’ education by alleviating the financial \nexpenses  of  families.  These  States  demonstrate  promising  results \nin  increasing  girls’  enrolment  in  schools  through  targeted  financial \nassistance programs. However, these schemes must be supported by \nrobust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure that the funds \nare used effectively and that the intended outcomes are achieved.\n\niv.  Other initiatives\n\n110.  In addition to training, awareness, and financial support, states have \nimplemented  various  structural  measures  to  reinforce  the  PCMA. \nFor  example,  some  States  conduct  regular  meetings  with  school \nauthorities to identify and reintegrate school dropouts, using education \nas a key tool to prevent child marriages. States like Assam collaborate \nwith NGOs and CBOs to rehabilitate victims, provide compensation, \nand facilitate home visits through DCPU staff. Several states have also \ndrafted action plans: Uttar Pradesh has District Action Plans for ending \nchild  marriage  and  adolescent  empowerment,  incorporating  and \nadapting activities from the State Action Plan. Rajasthan introduced \nits  State Action  Plan  in  2017,152  anchoring  multiple  interventions \nand  activities  to  address  the  root  causes  of  child  marriage. These \nplans include partnerships and monitorable indicators, ensuring that \nprogress is tracked and evaluated for effectiveness and relevance.\n\n111.  Additionally, some States like Karnataka have created online portals \nto  monitor  child  marriage  cases,  enhancing  transparency  and \naccountability.153 These structural initiatives, supported by partnerships \nwith community organizations and digital monitoring tools, are crucial \n\n152  Rajasthan Government (2017), ‘State Strategy and Action Plan for Prevention of Child Marriage: Towards \ncreating  a  child  marriage  free  Rajasthan;  The  document  articulates  the  principles,  strategy,  vision, \nobjectives, actions, coordination mechanisms and resources that will ensure effective implementation of \nthe actions/interventions to end child marriage in Rajasthan. \n\n153  Karnataka’s  online  portal  ‘Surakshini’  keeps  track  of  the  child’s  status,  and  every  department  official \n\ninvolved has to log in regularly.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1578 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nto a holistic approach that prevents child marriages and strengthens \nprotection for vulnerable children.\n\nv. \n\n Impact analysis of State schemes\n\n112.  The  data  reveals  that  a  comprehensive,  multifaceted  approach \ninvolving  training  schemes,  awareness  programs,  and  financial \nincentives  is  essential  for  effectively  combating  child  marriage. \nHowever,  not  all  States  have  adopted  this  three-pronged  strategy. \nStates  such  as Andhra  Pradesh,  Telangana,  and  Bihar  showcase \nstrong  alignment  with  this  multifaceted  approach.  For  instance, \nthe  financial  incentive  schemes in Telangana  and Bihar  effectively \nincentivize  families  to  delay  marriage.  States  like  Haryana,  Uttar \nPradesh  and  Chhattisgarh  focus  on  training  and  awareness.  The \nabsence of direct financial support could limit their schemes’ impact on \neconomically vulnerable communities. While these efforts contribute \nto raising awareness and promoting societal change, families facing \nfinancial  hardships  may  still  lean  toward  early  marriage  without \neconomic  support  for  educational  or  vocational  opportunities.  The \nabsence of direct financial assistance may limit the reach and impact \nof  otherwise  well-designed  training  and  awareness  programs,  as \nfamilies  in  economically  challenged  communities  may  not  feel  the \nimmediate benefits of delaying marriage without addressing financial \nconstraints.\n\n113.  The data on child marriages across various States and UTs shows \na  range  of  outcomes  in  both  prevention  and  prosecution  efforts \nover the last three years. Several states, such as Andhra Pradesh, \nKarnataka, and West Bengal, report a high number of cases, though \nmany  of  these  cases  were  prevented  before  the  marriages  could \nbe solemnized. Karnataka documented 8,348 child marriage cases, \npreventing  7,306  of  these,  while Andhra  Pradesh  reported  3,413 \ncases, with 3,136 successfully prevented. This reflects a proactive \napproach  to  preventing  child  marriages  in  some  states,  where \nauthorities intercept and prevent a significant portion of cases before, \nthey are formalized. \n\n114.  Some States illustrate discrepancies between the number of child \nmarriage cases reported, the number prevented, and the number \nof  FIRs  filed.  Maharashtra  reported  2043  cases  prevented  but \nregistered  178  FIRs,  suggesting  limited  legal  follow-through. \nSimilarly,  Telangana  reported  4440  cases  of  child  marriage,  of \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1579\n\nwhich  only  149  FIRs  were  filed. Andhra  Pradesh,  despite  having \n3,416 cases registered, filed 10 FIRs. These gaps highlight potential \nobstacles  in  prosecution  and  a  possible  need  for  streamlined \ncooperation between child marriage prevention authorities and law \nenforcement agencies. Tamil Nadu presents a more comprehensive \napproach, where both prevention and FIR filing are high; with 8,966 \nreported cases, the state successfully prevented 6,436 marriages \nand filed 2,392 FIRs.\n\n115.  Interestingly,  several  States  and  UTs,  such  as  Dadra  and  Nagar \nHaveli, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland, reported no cases of \nchild  marriage  over  the  last  three  years.  While  this  might  indicate \nminimal occurrences of child marriage in these areas, it could also \nsuggest underreporting or a lack of awareness of the issue among \nauthorities  and  communities.  Furthermore,  States  and  UTs  like \nChhattisgarh, Chandigarh and Puducherry, which reported very low \nfigures  or  none  at  all,  raise  questions  about  the  consistency  and \naccuracy of data reporting processes.\n\n116. A  more  comprehensive  look  across  all  regions  also  includes \nvariations  in  the  effectiveness  of  interventions.  In  addition,  the \nnumber  of  cases  leading  to  FIRs  is  relatively  low  across  most \nstates compared to the number of marriages reported, highlighting \npotential gaps in legal action and prosecution efforts. Even in states \nwith high intervention rates, the limited legal action suggests that \nadditional  support  may  be  needed  to  ensure  accountability  and \ndeterrence.\n\nVI.  Traversing frontiers: international human rights norms\n\n117.  The development of child rights law is highly influenced by the evolving \nlegal standards in international law. The comity of nations has arrived \nat a broad consensus rooted in the goal to realise universal human \nrights  of  children.  Domestically  and  abroad,  various  jurisdictions \nhave developed their legal standards under the influence of global \nadvancements  in  international  bodies.  It  is  therefore  instructive  to \nlook at the progress made and prevailing standards on child rights \nin the context of early and forced marriage in international law. We \nshall therefore trace the universal framework on child rights, various \nregional advancements and the rights-based framework against child \nmarriage presently.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1580 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nA.  Universal framework\n\n118.  Early international conventions did not explicitly prohibit child marriage. \nWith the evolution of international law, the community of nations inched \ncloser  to  an  agreeable  standard  against  child  marriage.  We  shall \ntrace  this  evolution  in  international  human  rights  norms  presently. \nFirst, we shall briefly overview the Universal Declaration of Human \nRights,154 then we shall explore the Supplementary Convention on the \nAbolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices \nSimilar to Slavery of 1956155 and the International Covenant on Civil \nand Political Rights 1966.156 Lastly we shall look at the two seminal \nconventions on the issue of child marriage, namely, the Convention \non  the  Elimination  of All  Forms  of  Discrimination  against  Women \n1979157 and the CRC 1989. \n\ni. \n\nUniversal Declaration of Human Rights\n\n119.  The UDHR adopted as General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) in \n1948,158 set forth fundamental principles regarding the right to marry. \nArticle 16(1) of the UDHR stipulates that men and women of full age, \nwithout any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the \nright to marry and to found a family.159 They are entitled to equal rights \nas to marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution. Article 16(2) \nfurther  stipulates  that  marriage  shall  be  entered  into  only  with  the \nfree  and  full  consent  of  the  intending  spouses.160 Although  it  does \nnot specify a minimum age for marriage, the UDHR establishes that \nmarriage should be based on free and full consent, laying an early \nframework  for  safeguarding  autonomy  and  protecting  individuals \nfrom coerced or forced marriages.161\n\n120. In the years following the UDHR, International Human Rights Law162 \nbegan  to  recognize  and  address  the  specific  vulnerabilities  and \n\n154 \n\n‘UDHR’\n\n155  The  Supplementary  Convention  on  the  Abolition  of  Slavery,  the  Slave  Trade,  and  Institutions  and \n\nPractices Similar to Slavery of 1956; India ratified it on 23 June 1960. \n\n156 \n\n‘ICCPR’\n\n157 \n\n‘CEDAW’. \n\n158  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948). \n\n159 \n\nIbid, article 16(1); See also Maja Eriksson, ‘Article 16’ in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A \nCommentary, ed. Aide Eide et al. (Oxford: Scandinavian University Press, 1992), 243.\n\n160 \n\nIbid, article 16(2).\n\n161 \n\nIbid. \n\n162 \n\n‘IHRL’\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1581\n\nabuses associated with child marriage. This shift was a response to \ngrowing evidence that child marriage disproportionately harms girls, \nundermining  their  education,  health,  and  prospects  for  economic \nindependence.  Recognizing  that  such  marriages  are  often  non-\nconsensual  and  perpetuate  cycles  of  poverty  and  inequality,  the \ninternational community began drafting conventions aimed at setting \nprotective standards for marriageable age and conditions.\n\nii.  Recognition in political conventions\n\n121. The Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave \nTrade,  and  Institutions  and  Practices  Similar  to  Slavery  of  1956163 \nexpanded  on  these  protections  by  directly  addressing  practices \nsimilar to slavery, including child marriage. Article 2 of the Convention \nmandates that State Parties prescribe, where appropriate, suitable \nminimum ages of marriage and encourage the use of facilities whereby \nthe consent of both parties to a marriage may be freely expressed \nin  the  presence  of  a  competent  civil  or  religious  authority.164  This \nprovision reflects a recognition that child marriage can be exploitative \nand  akin  to  slavery.  In  aligning  marriage  requirements  with  those \ndesigned  to  end  slavery-like  practices,  the  Convention  highlights \nthe  UN’s  stance  against  child  marriage  as  a  form  of  coercion  and \nexploitation.\n\n122. These  standards  were  developed  as  a  matter  of  political  rights \nguarantee in the ICCPR.165 Article 23(2) establishes the right of men \nand women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family.166 \nArticle  23(3)  prescribes  that  no  marriage  shall  be  entered  into \nwithout the free and full consent of the intending spouses.167 Finally,  \nArticle  23(4)  requires  that  State  Parties  take  measures  to  ensure \nequality  in  marriage,  signalling  the  UN’s  increasing  recognition \nof  individual  autonomy,  choice,  and  consent  in  marriage.168  This \nframework  not  only  advocates  for  minimum  marriageable  age \nrequirements but also emphasizes free and full consent. The framers \n\n163  The  Supplementary  Convention  on  the  Abolition  of  Slavery,  the  Slave  Trade,  and  Institutions  and \n\nPractices Similar to Slavery, 1956. \n\n164 \n\nIbid, Article 2. \n\n165  UN  General  Assembly  (1966).  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights,  United  Nations, \n\nTreaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171. \n\n166 \n\nICCPR, Article 23 (2). \n\n167 \n\nICCPR. Article 23(3). \n\n168 \n\nICCPR. Article 23(4). \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1582 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nof these documents aimed to prevent child marriage by specifically \nusing the terms “men and women,” rather than “males and females,” \nto imply an age of maturity and decision-making capacity necessary \nfor marriage.169\n\niii.  Targeted  focus:  the  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of All \nForms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention \non the Rights of the Child.\n\n123. The  progress  of  the  international  community  led  to  the  ground-\nbreaking  inclusion  of  child  marriage  as  an  expressly  recognised \nillegality  in  the  CEDAW.170 Article  16(2)  explicitly  invalidates  child \nbetrothals and marriages, calling for legislation to establish a minimum \nage for marriage and mandate official registration.171 This is crucial to \nCEDAW’s objective of safeguarding women’s rights and autonomy, \nhighlighting  that  child  marriage  undermines  the  agency,  equality, \nand dignity of girls and women. By emphasizing that child marriages \nshould have no legal effect, CEDAW directly addresses the systemic \ninequalities perpetuated through such practices.\n\n124. The guarantee to women in CEDAW was further tailored as a matter \nof child rights in 1989 with the adoption of the CRC.172 It was essential \nto establish a global framework dedicated to children because, despite \nprevious human rights treaties, there remained gaps in protections \nfor children who, due to their age and vulnerability, require special \nsafeguards. The CRC acknowledges the unique needs of children \nfor  development,173  care,  and  protection  from  abuse,  exploitation, \nand neglect.174 The international community recognized that children \nare  often  marginalized,  and  their  rights  overlooked,  which  made  it \ncritical to implement specific provisions tailored to them.\n\n169  See Maja Eriksson, ‘Article 16’ in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Commentary, ed. Aide \n\nEide et al. (Oxford: Scandinavian University Press, 1992), 243.\n\n170  UN  General Assembly  (1989).  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of All  Forms  of  Discrimination Against \n\nWomen, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13. \n\n171  CEDAW, Article 16 (2). \n\n172  UN General Assembly (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. \n\n1577, p. 3. \n\n173  CRC,  Article  6(2);  State  Parties  shall  ensure  to  the  maximum  extent  possible  the  survival  and \n\ndevelopment of the child.\n\n174  CRC, Article 19 (1); Requires States to take all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms \n\nof abuse, neglect, or maltreatment while in the care of parents. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1583\n\n125. Article 1 of the CRC defines a child as a person below the age of \neighteen unless, under the law applicable to the child, a majority is \nattained earlier.175 In the context of child marriage, this provision sets \na  clear  threshold  for  defining  who  is  considered  a  child,  ensuring \nthat international standards focus on the protection of minors from \nearly and forced marriages. Article 19(1) of the CRC requires State \nParties to take all necessary legislative, administrative, social, and \neducational measures to protect children from all forms of physical \nor mental violence, injury, abuse, neglect, or exploitation, including \nsexual abuse, whether committed by parents, guardians, or others \nresponsible for the child’s care.176 This article recognizes that children, \ndue  to  their  vulnerability,  require  comprehensive  protection  across \nvarious domains of life, especially from forms of violence that may \noccur within the family or caregiving environment. This is particularly \nrelevant in cases of child marriage, where minors may face abuse \nor  exploitation  under  the  guise  of  familial  or  cultural  practices. \nArticle 19(2) further emphasizes the need for protective measures, \nincluding the creation of social programs, support services for children \nand  caregivers,  and  judicial  mechanisms  to  address  and  prevent \nmaltreatment.177  This  highlights  the  importance  of  establishing  a \nrobust  framework  for  the  identification,  reporting,  and  follow-up  of \nchild abuse cases, offering practical measures for intervention and \nprevention.\n\nB.  Regional framework\n\n126. In  addition  to  international  conventions,  three  important  regional \nconventions have addressed the issue of child marriage. Regional \nconventions  reflect  the  targetter  focus  of  a  region  to  pivot  their \nshared values and goals into obligatory and tangible outcomes. We \nshall  elucidate  the  framework  developed  in  the African  Union,  the \nEuropean Union and the SAARC.\n\ni. \n\nAfrican Union\n\n127. The  African  Charter  on  the  Rights  and  Welfare  of  the  Child,178 \n\n175  CRC, Article 1. \n\n176  CRC, Article 19(1). \n\n177  CRC. Article 19(2) \n\n178 \n\n‘ARWRC’\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1584 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nadopted in 1990,179 builds upon international frameworks by requiring \nState Parties to enact legislation setting eighteen as the minimum \nage  for  marriage. Article  21  of  the  Charter  specifically  addresses \n“Protection  against  Harmful  Social  and  Cultural  Practices,”  stating \nthat all necessary measures should be taken to eliminate customs \ndetrimental  to  children’s  health,  dignity,  and  development.180Under \nArticle  21(2),  child  marriage  and  betrothal  are  prohibited,  with  a \nmandate  that  states  enact  laws  setting  a  minimum  marriageable \nage of eighteen and ensuring compulsory marriage registration.181\n\n128. In  Association  pour  le  Progrès  et  la  Défense  des  Droits  des \nFemmes Maliennes (APDF) and the Institute for Human Rights \nand  Development  in  Africa  (IHRDA)  v.  Republic  of  Mali,182  the \nAfrican Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights addressed significant \nissues regarding child marriage. The applicants argued that Mali’s \nFamily Code of 2011, which set the minimum marriage age for girls \nat sixteen (with exceptions allowing marriage as young as fifteen), \nviolated  key  international  agreements  such  as  the African  Charter \non Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa183 \nand the ACRWC both of which require a minimum marriage age of \neighteen to protect the rights of children. Furthermore, the applicants \nraised  concerns  that  religious  authorities  in  Mali  often  performed \nmarriages without ensuring full and free consent from both parties, \nleading to forced marriages that particularly affected young girls.184\n\n129. The  court  found  that  Mali’s  Family  Code  was  incompatible  with \nits  obligations  under  multiple  international  instruments,  including \nthe Maputo Protocol, the ACRWC and CEDAW.185 Specifically, the \nFamily Code’s provisions on minimum marriage age and the lack of \nmandatory consent were seen as violations of these treaties, which \nseek to eliminate harmful practices and ensure gender equality and \n\n179  The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990). OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/24.9/49, entered \ninto force Nov. 29, 1999; See also IPAS, African Alliance for Women’s Reproductive Health Rights – A \nHandbook for Advocacy in the African Human Rights System (Chapel Hill: IPAS, 2006), 29. \n\n180  ARWRC, Article 21(1). \n\n181  ARWRC, Article 21(2). \n\n182  Association pour le progrès et la défense des droits des femmes Maliennes (APDF) and the Institute for \nHuman Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) v. Republic of Mali, App. No. 046/2016, Judgment, \nAfrican Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights [Afr. Ct. H.P.R.] (May 11, 2018). \n\n183 \n\n‘Maputo Protocol’\n\n184 \n\nIbid, para 59, 60, 62.\n\n185 \n\n Ibid, para 124. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1585\n\nchild  protection.186  Consequently,  the  court  ordered  Mali  to  amend \nits  Family  Code  to  align  it  with  these  international  standards  by \nsetting a minimum marriage age of eighteen, ensuring free consent \nto marriage, and providing equal inheritance rights for all children, \nincluding those born outside of marriage.\n\n130. This  ruling  is  significant  because  it  highlights  the  enforceability  of \ninternational human rights treaties at the regional level, compelling \nMali to amend its laws to meet international obligations. By holding \nMali  accountable,  the  court  reinforced  the  legally  binding  nature \nof  the  Maputo  Protocol,  ACRWC,  and  CEDAW,  promoting  the \nstandardization  of  human  rights  protections  across  Africa.  This \ndecision also sets a precedent for other African nations, emphasizing \nthe duty to harmonize domestic laws with international child protection \nstandards.\n\nii. \n\n European Union\n\n131. In  the  European  Union,  the  European  Convention  on  Human \nRights187 is a key legal instrument that impacts issues of marriage and \nchild protection. 188 Specifically, Article 12 of the ECHR grants men \nand women of marriageable age the right to marry189, while Article 8 \nprotects the right to respect for private and family life.190 These articles \ndo not directly set a minimum age for marriage but do highlight the \nimportance of individual autonomy and respect for personal and family \nlife, which are relevant to child marriage discussions. Article 3, which \nprohibits inhuman or degrading treatment, has also been interpreted \nto  protect  vulnerable  individuals,  including  children,  from  practices \nthat may be harmful or coercive, such as child marriage.191\n\n132. Early marriage in the European Region is described as an abrupt \nand premature transition from childhood to adult life for the affected \nminors, who are predominantly girls192. At the EU level, the resolution \n\n186 \n\nIbid, para 125. \n\n187  “ECHR”\n\n188  The European Convention on Human Rights, 1950; See https://www.echr.coe.int/european-convention-\n\non-human-rights\n\n189  ECHR, Article 12. \n\n190  ECHR, Article 8. \n\n191 \n\nIbid, Article 3. \n\n192  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Forced Marriage in Europe (2018), Resolution 2233, \npara. 2; Recognised that Early marriage thereby typically leads to restricted opportunities for education \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1586 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nof  the  European  Parliament  of  4  October  2017  on  “Ending  Child \nMarriage”  references  the  considerable  negative  effects  of  child \nmarriage on the rights of children, in particular those of girls affected \nby the practice.\n\n133. A  landmark  case  in  the  German  Federal  Constitutional  Court193 \ninvolved  a  Syrian  couple  who  married  in  2015  under  Syrian  law, \nwith the wife being 14 at the time. Fleeing the Syrian conflict, they \narrived  in  Germany,  where  the  authorities  took  the  young  wife \ninto  care  due  to  her  minor  status.  Citing  the Act  to  Prevent  Child \nMarriages  2017,  the  German  courts  automatically  invalidated  the \nmarriage  under Article  13(3)  no.  1  of  the  Introductory Act  to  the \nCivil Code (EGBGB), which prohibits the recognition of marriages if \none spouse was under 16 at the time. The husband contested this, \narguing that their marriage was valid under Syrian law and should \nbe recognized in Germany.\n\n134. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that, although \nthe state has a legitimate interest in protecting minors from child \nmarriage, the automatic invalidation of marriages involving minors \nunder 16 was unconstitutional.194 The Court found that the law lacked \nprovisions for dealing with the legal consequences of invalidation, \nand it failed to offer the possibility of validating the marriage once \nboth  parties  reached  adulthood.  This  automatic  invalidation  was \nseen  as  conflicting  with  Article  6(1)  of  the  German  Basic  Law, \nwhich protects the right to marry and form a family195. It is a right \nthat is based on the free will, equality and autonomy of the partners \nand involves special mutual obligations, with the official ceremony \nof marriage serving to substantiate the marriage through a formal \nact.196\n\n135. The  Court  recognised  that  the  invalidation  of  such  marriages  not \nonly  safeguards  minors  from  the  inherent  risks  associated  with \nmarital cohabitation but also enhances the legal options available to \nguardians. They can determine the living arrangements of married \n\nand economic development of women, who are mostly affected. \n\n193  See BVerfG, Order of the First Senate of 1 February 2023 - 1 BvL 7/18 (Germany). \n\n194 \n\nIbid, Para 44-45. \n\n195 \n\nIbid, Para 107. \n\n196 \n\nIbid, Para 114 -116. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1587\n\nminors without considering their marital status, ensuring that decisions \nprioritize the child’s best interests under IHRL197. Protecting minors \nfrom  early  marriage  aligns  with  the  state’s  duty  to  uphold  life  and \nphysical  integrity  under Article  2(2)  of  the  German  Basic  Law  and \naddresses  the  need  to  eliminate  disadvantages  faced  by  women. \nAs  a  result,  the  court  ordered  the  legislature  to  amend  the  law  by \n30 June 2024, to address these gaps, thus providing legal clarity on \nthe status of such marriages and offering a pathway for validation \nafter  reaching  adulthood.198  This  case  illustrates  the  complexities \ninvolved in addressing child marriage within Europe, particularly in \nthe context of refugees and migration. While the German law aimed \nto protect minors, the Federal Constitutional Court emphasized the \nneed for balance. \n\n136. In India, the PCMA protects child brides and any child born from a \nchild marriage by prescribing for their maintenance, residence and \ncustody.  Further,  any  child  born  from  such  a  marriage  is  deemed \nlegitimate. These provisions apply even when the marriage has been \nnullified at the instance of the minor contracting party. India therefore \ndoes  not  have  the  same  legal  gap  that  the  Federal  Constitutional \nCourt observed in German law. Protections of maintenance, residence \nand custody under family law are a recognition of the responsibilities \nthat society places on families after marriage. The philosophy is that \na law must not merely penalise criminal action – in this case child \nmarriage – but must also compensate and address the harm meted \nout to the victim. \n\niii.  SAARC\n\n137. Child  marriage  is  a  significant  concern  in  South  Asia,  where \napproximately one in four young women are first married or in union \nbefore  reaching  the  age  of  eighteen.199  The  prevalence  of  child \nmarriage  varies  greatly  across  the  region,  with  over  50%  of  girls \nmarried before eighteen in Bangladesh, compared to only 2% in the \nMaldives.200 Furthermore, even within individual countries, disparities \n\n197 \n\nIbid. \n\n198 \n\nIbid, Para 190-192. \n\n199  UNICEF  (2023). A  Profile  of  Child  Marriage  in  South Asia;  UN  (2022).  United  Nations  Department  of \n\nEconomic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Population Prospects.\n\n200 \n\nIbid. \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1588 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nexist;  for  example, Afghanistan  shows  a  tenfold  difference  in  child \nmarriage rates across its provinces.201 Although child marriage is less \ncommon among boys, it still occurs, with nearly 1 in 10 young men \nin Nepal reporting childhood marriages.202 Despite these challenges, \nSouth Asia is recognized for its progress in reducing child marriage \nrates, showcasing a potential pathway for other regions facing similar \nissues.\n\n138. The  SAARC  Charter,203  established  in  1985,  lays  the  foundation \nfor  regional  cooperation  among  the  eight  South Asian  countries—\nAfghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, \nand Sri Lanka. It emphasizes the need for collaboration in various \nsectors,  including  social  development,  which  encompasses \nthe  protection  of  children’s  rights.  The  Convention  on  Regional \nArrangements  for  the  Promotion  of  Child  Welfare  in  South Asia, \nadopted in 2002,204 specifically addresses the alarming prevalence \nof  child  marriage  in  the  region.  This  Convention  recognizes  child \nmarriage as a violation of children’s rights and advocates for legislation \nto  set  a  minimum  marriage  age,  promote  awareness,  and  protect \nchildren from harmful practices.\n\n139. The  Convention  reinforces  the  commitment  of  SAARC  member \nstates  to  create  a  protective  environment  for  children  by  calling \nfor effective measures to combat child marriage. This includes the \nestablishment  of  monitoring  systems,  the  promotion  of  education, \nand  the  mobilization  of  community  resources  to  challenge  cultural \nnorms that perpetuate child marriage.\n\nC.  Rights based framework\n\n140. Child marriage is forced marriage and international law recognises \nit as such. Early marriage, or child marriage involves children under \n\n201 \n\nIbid. \n\n202 \n\nIbid. \n\n203  The Charter of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation; The objectives of the association \nare to: a) promote the welfare and quality of life of the peoples of South Asia; b) accelerate economic \ngrowth, social progress, and cultural development, ensuring individuals can live with dignity and realize \ntheir  full  potential;  c)  enhance  collective  self-reliance  among  South Asian  countries;  d)  foster  mutual \ntrust,  understanding,  and  appreciation  of  shared  challenges;  e)  encourage  collaboration  and  mutual \nassistance in economic, social, cultural, technical, and scientific areas; (f) strengthen cooperation with \nother developing countries; g) collaborate in international forums on common interests; h) engage with \ninternational and regional organizations with similar goals\n\n204  The Convention on Regional Arrangements for the Promotion of Child Welfare in South Asia, 2002. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1589\n\neighteen years. The majority of child marriages involve minor girls. The \njoint General Recommendation and Comment on harmful practices \nfrom the CRC and the CEDAW Committee states205:\n\n“A child marriage is considered to be a form of forced \nmarriage, given that one and/or both parties have not \nexpressed full, free, and informed consent. As a matter \nof respecting the child’s evolving capacities and autonomy \nin making decisions that affect her or his life, a marriage \nof a mature, capable child below 18 years of age may be \nallowed  in  exceptional  circumstances,  provided  that  the \nchild is at least 16 years of age and that such decisions \nare  made  by  a  judge  based  on  legitimate  exceptional \ngrounds defined by law and on the evidence of maturity, \nwithout deference to culture and tradition.”\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\n141. The joint General Recommendation and Comment proposed a detailed \nregime of laws to address forced and early marriage, including raising \nawareness,  addressing  root  causes,  ensuring  proper  registration \nof  births  and  marriages,  protection  orders,  and  ensuring  access  to \nremedies and reparations, including the use of criminal law.206\n\n142. This  issue  has  been  dealt  with  in  international  case  laws  as  well. \nIn  Prosecutor  v.  Dominic  Ongwen,207  the  International  Criminal \nCourt’s Appeals  Chamber  focused  on  a  former  commander  of  the \nLord’s  Resistance  Army  who  was  charged  with  war  crimes  and \ncrimes  against  humanity. The  court  had  to  adjudicate  whether  the \nlegal characterization of ‘forced marriage’ could be classified as an \n‘other inhumane act’ under Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute.208 The \nTrial  Chamber  noted  that  forced  marriage  is  similar  in  nature  and \ngravity to the acts listed in Article 7(1).209\n\n205  Joint  general  recommendation  No.  31  of  the  Committee  on  the  Elimination  of  Discrimination  against \nWomen /General comment No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices”, UN \nDocCEDAW/C/GC/31-CRC/C/GC18 (2014), para 20. \n\n206 \n\nIbid. \n\n207  No. ICC-02/04-01/15 A A2 (Ongwen Trial Judgment). \n\n208  The Rome Statute, Article 7(1); “Other inhumane Act” is defined as (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar \n\ncharacter intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health”\n\n209  Ongwen Trial Judgment, para. 2751.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1590 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n143. The  violation  of  relational  autonomy  has  been  characterized  in \nvarious  ways  under  international  law.  Within  the  framework  of \ninternational  human  rights  law,  forced  marriage  fundamentally \ndenies individuals the right to freely and consensually enter into a \nconjugal union. This denial not only infringes upon personal liberty \nbut also undermines the essential dignity and agency of individuals, \nparticularly  women,  who  are  disproportionately  affected  by  such \npractices. The Court noted: \n\n“The  first  type  of  harm  caused  by  forced  marriage,  the \nviolation  of  relational  autonomy,  has  been  described  in \nvarious ways under international law. Under international \nhuman  rights  law,  the  crux  of  forced  marriage  is  the \ndenial  of  the  right  to  freely  and  consensually  enter  into \nmarriage. In other words, the focus is on consent to \nmarriage.  For  example,  the  International  Covenant \non  Civil  and  Political  Rights  (“ICCPR”)  states  that \n“No  marriage  shall  be  entered  into  without  the  free \nand full consent of the intending spouses”. Similarly, \nthe  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of  All  Forms  of \nDiscrimination  Against  Women  (“CEDAW”).  The \nsame  right  freely  to  choose  a  spouse  and  to  enter \ninto  marriage  only  with  their  free  and  full  consent”. \nInternational  human  rights  law  bodies  have  recognized \nthat forced marriage, as defined under international human \nrights law, can take place both in peacetime and in armed \nconflict. International criminal law similarly recognizes the \ndeprivation of relational autonomy through the imposition \nof  a  “conjugal  union”  on  a  victim.  This  union  need  not \nbe  marriage  as  recognized  under  domestic  law,  as  it \nalso includes relationships in which the victim is forcibly \nattached to a particular person outside of the context of \ndomestic  marriage  law.  These  forced  conjugal  unions \ncan take place during armed conflict or ‘peacetime’ mass \natrocity,  and  under  oppressive  regimes,  and  can  occur \nregardless of the victim’s existing marriage status.”\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\ni. \n\nRight to free choice and autonomy\n\n144. The issue of forced marriage is intricately linked to child marriage, as \nboth practices deny individuals, particularly minors, the fundamental \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1591\n\nright to make autonomous decisions regarding their lives. The imposition \nof  forced  marriage  reflects  the  broader  systemic  issue  of  coerced \nrelationships that deny the victims agency and autonomy. This lack of \nagency is heightened in the context of child marriage, where children \nare subjected to societal and familial pressures that undermine their \nability to give informed consent. This mirrors the definition of forced \nmarriage as articulated in international law, where relational autonomy \nis  violated,  and  the  individual’s  right  to  freely  choose  a  partner  is \ndisregarded. International law has evolved a rights-based framework \nto address myriad issues. Child marriage is an evil against which the \ninternational  community  has  reflected  its  commitment  through  the \nrecognition of rights. These rights are traced below.\n\n145. This encompasses the right to free and informed consent and the \nright against gender-based violence.210 These interconnected rights \nform  the  foundation  for  ensuring  that  marriage  is  a  consensual \npartnership  rather  than  a  coercive  arrangement,  particularly  when \naddressing the issue of child marriage.\n\na.  Right to free and informed consent\n\n146. Various  international  instruments211  emphasize  the  necessity  for \nparties  entering  into  marriage  to  provide  free  and  full  consent. \nCEDAW’s  General  Recommendations  on  Marriage  and  family \nrelations further elucidate that when men and women marry, they \nassume important responsibilities. Consequently, marriage should \nnot be permitted before they attain full maturity and capacity to act.212 \nFor women to exercise full, free, and informed consent as outlined \nin Article  16(1)(b)  of  CEDAW,213  they  must  possess  the  cognitive \ncapacity to comprehend the meaning and responsibilities associated \nwith  marriage.  This  entails  having  access  to  comprehensive \ninformation about their potential spouse, understanding the institution \n\n210 \n\n‘GBV’\n\n211  See  Article  16(2)  of  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights  (UDHR)  1948,  Article  10(1)  of  the \nInternational  Covenant  on  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural  Rights  (ICESCR)  1966,  Article  23(3)  of \nthe  ICCPR, Article  1  of  the  UN  Convention  on  Consent  to  Marriage,  Minimum Age  for  Marriage  and \nRegistration  of  Marriages  1962, Article  16(1)(b)  of  the  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of All  Forms  of \nDiscrimination Against  Women  (CEDAW)  1975, Article  17(3)  of  the American  Convention  on  Human \nRights 1969, and Article 33 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights 2004. \n\n212  UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW General Recommendation \n\nNo. 21: Equality in Marriage and Family Relations 1994, para 16. \n\n213  CEDAW, article 16(1)b states ‘The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only \n\nwith their free and full consent’. \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1592 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nof  marriage,  and  recognizing  their  rights  to  choose  if,  when,  and \nwhom to marry. \n\n147. This principle has been elucidated in different judgments, reinforcing \nthe right to free and informed consent within the context of marriage. \nIn  National  Coalition  for  Gay  and  Lesbian  Equality  v.  Minister \nof  Justice214  the  Constitutional  Court  of  South Africa  emphasized \nthat  autonomy  encompasses  more  than  mere  freedom  from  state \ninterference; it acknowledges the need for individuals to choose their \npartners freely. The court in that case held that:\n\n“117. Autonomy must mean far more than the right to occupy \nan envelope of space in which a socially detached individual \ncan act freely from interference by the state. What is crucial \nis the nature of the activity, not its site. While recognising \nthe  unique  worth  of  each  person,  the  Constitution  does \nnot presuppose that a holder of rights is as an isolated, \nlonely and abstract figure possessing a disembodied and \nsocially  disconnected  self.  It  acknowledges  that  people \nlive in their bodies, their communities, their cultures, their \nplaces and their times. It is not for the state to choose or \nto  arrange  the  choice  of  partner,  but  for  the  partners  to \nchoose themselves”\n\n148. Similarly  in  Artavia  Murillo  ET  AL  v.  Costa  Rica,215  the  Inter-\nAmerican Court of Human Rights addressed the question of whether \nthe  State’s  prohibition  on  the  practice  of  in  vitro  fertilisation  (IVF) \nconstituted an arbitrary interference with the right to private life. The \ncourt affirmed that the right to private life extends beyond privacy to \ninclude personal autonomy and the freedom to establish relationships. \nThe Court held that:\n\n“The  scope  of  the  protection  of  the  right  to  private  life \nhas been interpreted in broad terms by the international \nhuman  rights  courts,  when  indicating  that  this  goes \nbeyond  the  right  to  privacy.  The  protection  of  private \nlife encompasses a series of factors associated with \nthe  dignity  of  the  individual,  including,  for  example, \nthe ability to develop his or her own personality and \n\n214  1999 (1) SA 6, CC (South Africa). \n\n215 \n\nInter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 257 (American Court of Human Rights). \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1593\n\naspirations, to determine his or her own identity and \nto define his or her own personal relationships. The \nconcept of private life encompasses aspects of physical \nand social identity, including the right to personal autonomy, \npersonal  development  and  the  right  to  establish  and \ndevelop relationships with other human beings and with the \noutside world. The effective exercise of the right to private \nlife  is  decisive  for  the  possibility  of  exercising  personal \nautonomy  on  the  future  course  of  relevant  events  for  a \nperson’s quality of life. Private life includes the way in which \nindividual views himself and how he decides to project this \nview towards others, and is an essential condition for the \nfree development of the personality.”\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\n149. These  judgments  emphasize  the  critical  role  of  free  and  informed \n\nconsent in marriage, particularly regarding child marriage. \n\nb.  Right against gender-based violence\n\n150. Further,  the  right  against  GBV  is  recognised.  Article  34  of  the \nCRC  provides  a  right  to  protection  from  sexual  exploitation  and \nabuse,  defining  child  marriage  as  a  form  of  sexual  exploitation.216 \nArticle 19 prohibits all forms of physical or mental violence, abuse, or \nexploitation, with many young brides suffering these consequences.217 \nChild  marriage  frequently  leads  to  violence  against  child  wives, \nand although CEDAW does not specifically label child marriage as \nviolence  against  women,  it  identifies  forced  marriage  as  a  form  of \nfamily violence in General Recommendations 19 on violence against \nwomen.218  The  Committee  interprets  Articles  2(f),  5,  and  10(c) \ntogether,  recognizing  that  traditional  attitudes  regarding  women’s \nsubordination  perpetuate  practices  involving  violence  or  coercion, \nsuch as forced marriage.219\n\n151. The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, \nadopted  by  the  General  Assembly,  defines  violence  as  any  act \n\n216  CRC, Article 34. \n\n217  CRC, Article 19. \n\n218  See  CEDAW  General  Recommendation  No.  19:  Violence  against  Women,  Adopted  at  the  Eleventh \nSession  of  the  Committee  on  the  Elimination  of  Discrimination  against  Women  (1992),  Document \nA/47/38 [Para 11]. \n\n219 \n\nIbid, [Para 24]. \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1594 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nof  GBV  that  results  in,  or  is  likely  to  result  in,  physical,  sexual,  or \npsychological harm or suffering to women.220 The Declaration calls on \nStates to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish \nacts of violence against women. Article 4 requires member states to \ncondemn violence against women and not invoke custom, tradition, \nor religion to evade their obligations to eliminate such violence.221\n\n152. The Istanbul Convention is the first international treaty to contain \na  definition  of  gender  as  a  socially  constructed  category  that \ndefines “women” and “men” according to socially assigned roles, \nbehaviours, activities, and attributes.222 It firmly establishes the link \nbetween achieving gender equality and the eradication of violence \nagainst women. Based on this premise, it recognizes the structural \nnature  of  violence  against  women  and  that  it  is  a  manifestation \nof  the  historically  unequal  power  relations  between  women  and \nmen. The Convention specifically asks State parties to ensure that \nculture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ shall not be \nconsidered as justification for any acts of violence. Evidently, the \nhuman  and  fundamental  right  against  GBV  has  found  firm  roots \nin  the  international  sphere.  This  affords  protection  against  child \nmarriage,  as  it  is  a  form  of  GBV  that  disproportionately  affects \ngirls  and  women.  It  subjects  them  to  early  and  forced  marriages \nperpetuating  power  imbalances  and  often  leading  to  physical, \nemotional, and sexual abuse. \n\nii.  Right to education\n\n153. The right to education is violated by the commission of child marriage \nunder  international  law.  These  rights  are  manifested  in  the  rights \nof children to – primary education, information, and sex education. \n\na.  Right to primary education\n\n154. The CRC mandates that States ensure primary education is free and \ncompulsory. Article 28 states that the child has the right to education,223 \n\n220  UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, A/RES/48/104, UN \n\nGeneral Assembly (20 December 1991). \n\n221  DEVAW, Article 4. \n\n222  Council of Europe (2014). The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence \n\nagainst Women and Domestic Violence. \n\n223  CRC, Article 28. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1595\n\nwhile  Article  29  emphasizes  that  education  should  develop  the \nchild’s personality, talents, and abilities, as well as promote respect \nfor human rights and fundamental freedoms.224\n\n155. The CRC’s Guidelines for Periodic Reports require States to outline \nspecific  measures  taken  to  ensure  compulsory  primary  education, \nincluding minimum age for enrolment and compulsory education.225 \nThe Committee further extends this obligation to include secondary \neducation,  reinforcing  the  need  for  comprehensive  educational \npolicies. The Concluding Comments of the CEDAW Committee has \nexpressed ongoing concern regarding the impact of early and forced \nmarriages on school dropout rates among girls and urged States to \nadopt all available measures to eliminate child marriage.226\n\n156. Research from UNESCO highlights that, in many countries, marriage \nand  schooling  are  seen  as  mutually  exclusive.227  In  South Asia, \nparticularly  in  Bangladesh,  India,  and  Nepal,  child  brides  are  four \ntimes more likely to be out of school than their unmarried peers.228 \nWhile the relationship between education and child marriage is clear, \nthe  mechanisms  driving  this  connection  are  complex,  suggesting \nthat  interventions  must  be  multifaceted  to  address  both  issues \nsimultaneously.\n\nb.  Right to be informed\n\n157. International obligations also emphasize the importance of awareness \nand  education  regarding  the  adverse  effects  of  child  marriage. \nArticle 12 of the CRC asserts that children should be provided with \ninformation  that  aids  their  understanding  of  issues  affecting  them, \nincluding the potential consequences of early marriage.229 The right \nto  be  informed  empowers  young  individuals  to  make  autonomous \n\n224  CRC, Article 29. \n\n225  Concluding  observations  of  the  UN  Committee  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child  (2002-2023)  –  extracts \nconcerning inclusive education and disability, gender and ethnic background and related issues. \n\n226  See Concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women \n(2002-2010)  –  extracts  concerning  inclusive  education;  Also  see  CEDAW  Committee  Concluding \nObservations, India (Jan 1990). UN Doc. A/55/38, Para 78. \n\n227  UNESCO (2021). Reimagining our futures together: a new social contract for education, International \nCommission  on  the  Futures  of  Education;  See  also  UNFPA  (2012).  Marrying  Too  Young:  End  Child \nMarriage, 76 p. \n\n228 \n\nIbid. \n\n229  CRC, Article 12. \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1596 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nchoices  about  their  lives,  fostering  an  environment  conducive  to \nresisting harmful practices such as child marriage. Education plays \na critical role in this regard; when girls are aware of their rights and \nthe detrimental effects of early marriage on their health, education, \nand economic prospects, they are better equipped to advocate for \nthemselves and their peers.\n\nc.  Right to sex education\n\n158. Major  United  Nations  conferences  of  the  1990s,  such  as  the \nInternational  Conference  on  Population  and  Development230  held \nin  Cairo  in  1994,  emphasized  the  importance  of  human  rights, \ngender  equality,  sexual  and  reproductive  health,  and  HIV/AIDS \nawareness.231  The  ICPD’s  Programme  of  Action  affirmed  that \nsexual  health  is  a  vital  component  of  overall  health,  stating  that \nall  individuals  should  have  access  to  information  and  services \nrelated to sexual and reproductive health.232 In subsequent years, \ndocuments  like  the  Yogyakarta  Principles233  and  the  Bali  Global \nYouth  Forum  have  built  upon  these  foundations,  addressing  the \nrights  of  marginalized  groups,  including  adolescents,  to  access \ncomprehensive sexuality education. In 2012, the UN Commission \non Population and Development reaffirmed these principles - calling \nstates  to  provide  evidence-based  comprehensive  education  on \nhuman  sexuality,  sexual  and  reproductive  health,  human  rights, \nand gender equality, enabling youth to engage with their sexuality \npositively and responsibly.234\n\n159. In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Human Rights235 upheld \nyoung  people’s  right  to  sexuality  education  in  schools.  This  case \n\n230  “ICPD”\n\n231  UN Population Fund (1995). Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, \nCairo,  5-13  September  1994, A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1;  UN  coordinated  an  International  Conference  on \nPopulation and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt. Its resulting Programme of Action is the steering \ndocument for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).\n\n232 \n\nIbid. \n\n233 \n\nInternational  Commission  of  Jurists  (2007).  Yogyakarta  Principles:  Principles  on  the  Application  of \nInternational  Human  Rights  Law  in  Relation  to  Sexual  Orientation  and  Gender  Identity.  International \nCommission of Jurists. \n\n234  See  UNESCO  (2018).  International  technical  guidance  on  sexuality  education:  an  evidence-informed \n\napproach. \n\n235  A.R. and L.R. v. Switzerland, application no. 22338/15 (EtCHR). \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1597\n\ninvolved  a  refusal  by  a  primary  school  to  grant  a  request  from  a \nparent seeking to exempt her daughter, then seven years old, from \nsex education lessons. The EtCHR opined that this refusal violated \nthe  right  to  freedom  of  thought,  conscience,  and  religion.  It  also \nviolates Article 2 (the right to life) and Article 8 (the right to respect \nfor  private  and  family  life).  The  Court  recognized  that  one  of  the \naims of sex education is to prevent sexual violence and exploitation, \nthreats that compromise children’s physical and mental health.236 It \nalso stressed that state education should prepare children for social \nrealities,  justifying  the  inclusion  of  sexual  education  for  even  very \nyoung children in primary education.\n\niii.  Right to development of children\n\n160. A lack of education denies girls their right to personal development \nas  guaranteed  in  the  CRC  which  is  crucial  for  them  to  prepare \nfor  adulthood  and  effectively  contribute  to  the  future  well-being \nof  their  families  and  society.  The  CRC  highlights  the  significance \nof  personal  development,  emphasizing  that  every  child  has  the \ninherent right to develop their personality, talents, and mental and \nphysical  abilities  to  their  fullest  potential.237  The  right  to  personal \ndevelopment  is  intricately  linked  to  various  aspects  of  a  child’s \nwell-being, particularly health. The CRC interrelates with five other \narticles,238  which  collectively  address  eight  specific  dimensions  of \nchild  development  that  require  protection:  physical  development, \nmental  development,  moral  development,  social  development, \ncultural  development,  spiritual  development,  development  of  the \npersonality, and development of talent.\n\n161. Under Article  29(1)(a)  of  the  CRC,  States  Parties  agree  that  the \neducation  of  the  child  shall  be  directed  toward  the  development \nof the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities \nto their fullest potential.239 Article 29(1)(d) further emphasizes that \neducation  should  be  oriented  toward  the  preparation  of  the  child \nfor a responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, \n\n236 \n\nIbid. \n\n237  See OHCHR (2013). Realising the Right to Development: Essays in Commemoration of 25 Years of the \n\nUnited Nations Declaration on the Right to Development. \n\n238  CRC, Articles 18(1), 23(3), 27(1), 29(1)(a), and 32(1).\n\n239  CRC, Article 29(1)(a)\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1598 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\npeace,  tolerance,  equality  of  sexes,  and  friendship  among  all \npeoples.240 Similarly, Article 13(1) of the International Covenant on \nEconomic,  Social  and  Cultural  Rights241  stipulates  that  education \nshall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society.242 \nArticle 13(2) reinforces this by asserting that education should be \ndirected to the full development of the human personality and the \nsense of its dignity.”243\n\n162. As  Professor  Nico  Schrijver  argues,  the  right  to  development \nfunctions as a cluster right, encompassing a range of interconnected \nrights.244 These include the right to a decent standard of living, which \nencompasses  the  right  to  food,  water,  clothing,  and  housing;  the \nright to work; the right to education; the right to life; and the right to \nfreedom of expression and organization. Together, these rights form \na comprehensive ‘human right to development,’ which is essential for \nempowering children, particularly girls, to realize their full potential \nand  actively  participate  in  their  communities. As  we  shall  explore \nbelow, these rights ought to influence our understanding of the law \nin dealing with child rights in India.\n\nVII.  India’s obligation\n\n163. Article 51 of the Indian Constitution emphasizes the importance of \ninternational  law  and  treaty  obligations,  urging  the  Indian  state  to \nmake concerted efforts to adhere to and respect international legal \nstandards245. This provision establishes a foundation for integrating \ninternational  human  rights  law  into  domestic  legal  frameworks, \nparticularly concerning the protection of vulnerable populations such \nas children.\n\n164. This  Court  has  consistently  affirmed  India’s  obligation  with  regard \ninternational  conventions  and  norms  when  interpreting  domestic \n\n240  CRC, Article 29(1)(d). \n\n241  UN General Assembly (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United \n\nNations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3. \n\n242 \n\nICESCR, Article 13(1). \n\n243 \n\nICESCR, Article 13(2). \n\n244  Nico  Schrijver,  Development  without  Destruction:  The  UN  and  Global  Resource  Management \n\n(Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2010), p. 221. \n\n245  The Constitution of India, Article 51; The article deals with Promotion of international peace and security - \nThe  State  shall  endeavour  to--(a)  promote  international  peace  and  security;  (b)  maintain  just  and \nhonourable relations between nations;(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the \ndealings of organised peoples with one another; and (d) encourage settlement of international disputes \nby arbitration.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1599\n\nlaws.246 In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,247 this Court formulated \nbasic  principles  and  guidelines  based  on  international  instruments \naimed at preventing sexual harassment at the workplace.248 In Vellore \nCitizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India249 this Court recognized \naspects  related  to  sustainable  development  as  part  of  customary \ninternational law.\n\n165. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. AK Chopra250 this Court \nhad the occasion to opine on the judiciary’s obligation to give due \nregard  to  international  conventions,  particularly  when  there  is  no \ninconsistency  between  these  conventions  and  domestic  laws,  or \nwhen domestic law is silent on a particular issue.\n\n“This  Court  has  in  numerous  cases  emphasized  that \nwhile  discussing  constitutional  requirements,  court  and \ncounsel  must  never  forget  the  core  principle  embodied \nin  the  international  conventions  and  instruments  and  as \nfar as possible, give effect to the principles contained in \nthose international instruments. The courts are under an \nobligation to give due regard to international conventions \nand norms for construing domestic laws, more so, when \nthere  is  no  inconsistency  between  them  and  there  is  a \nvoid in domestic law.” \n\n166. In M/s Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. M/s Super Cassette \nIndustries  Ltd.251  this  Court  expressed  its  willingness  to  adopt \nprinciple of international conventions to which India is not a signatory \nwhere  they  were  compatible  with  Indian  law.  This  approach  was \nfurther exemplified in Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India252 \n\n246  See  Prem  Shankar  Shukla  v.  Delhi Admn.  (1980)  3  SCC  526;  Mackinnon  Mackenzie  and  Co.  Ltd.  v. \nAudrey D’ Costa (1987) 2 SCC 469; Sheela Barse v. Secy., Children’s Aid Society [(1987) 3 SCC 50, 51] \nSCC at p. 54; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union \nof India (1997) 3 SCC 433 and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416, 438. \n\n247 \n\n[1997] Supp. 3 SCR 404 : 1997 AIR 3011\n\n248  These  guidelines  were  informed  by  several  international  instruments,  including  the  Convention  on \nthe Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Universal Declaration of \nHuman Rights, and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 111 on discrimination in \nemployment.\n\n249  1996  INSC  952; The  Court  incorporated  principles  like  the  “precautionary  principle”  and  the  “polluter \n\npays principle” into domestic law.\n\n250 \n\n[1999] 1 SCR 117 : (1999) 1 SCC 759\n\n251  This position has been reiterated by various other decisions of this Court. See, for instance, National \n\nLegal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438. \n\n252  Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v Union of India, 2021 INSC 916.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1600 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nwhere this Court maintained that even when India is not a signatory \nto certain international treaties, the principles enshrined within them \ncould still inform the interpretation of domestic legislation.\n\n167. The overarching theme emerging from these judgments is that India \nhas a dual obligation: to respect its commitments under international \ntreaties and to interpret domestic laws in a manner consistent with \ninternational  human  rights  standards.  This  is  particularly  relevant \nconcerning child marriage, as India has ratified several international \ninstruments  that  set  the  minimum  age  for  marriage  at  eighteen, \nincluding CEDAW253 and the CRC254. Moreover, even if India is not \na party to certain regional conventions that address child marriage \ndirectly, the principles of non-discrimination, the best interests of the \nchild, and the right to free and informed consent should guide national \nlegislation and policy in this area. These fundamental principles are \nembedded  in  various  international  human  rights  instruments  and \nform the backbone of child protection efforts globally.\n\n168. As  Prof.  Rangita  De  Silva-De  Alwis  argues  in  her  report,  Child \nMarriage and the Law – Legislative Reform Initiative Paper Series255 \nchild marriage must be treated as a human rights issue to highlight its \nseriousness and prompt state parties to amend their laws and policies \naccordingly.256  She  also  emphasises  that  framing  child  marriage \nwithin international treaties compels States to be accountable for their \ninaction on this issue. If a treaty establishes a monitoring body or a \nmechanism to address complaints, any non-compliant state party may \nface public rulings against it.257 We believe that such public scrutiny \ncan pressure the state to implement effective measures that protect \nchildren from the harmful effects of early marriage.\n\nVIII.  Constitutional guarantees against child marriage\n\n169. The right to free choice and autonomy, education and development \nof  the  child  with  all  their  offshoots  are  firmly  recognised  in  this \n\n253 \n\nIndia ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women on July 9, \n1993. \n\n254 \n\nIndia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992. \n\n255  Rangita  De  Silva  De-Alwis,  Child  Marriage  and  the  Law  –  Legislative  Reform  Initiative  Paper  Series \n\n(New York: Division of Policy and Planning, UNICEF, 2007), para 28. \n\n256 \n\nIbid, 6. \n\n257 \n\nIbid; See also Douglas, ‘The Significance of International Law’, 89-90. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1601\n\nCourt’s  jurisprudence  and  the  myriad  legislations  in  India  which \nwe  have  traced  above.  The  evolution  and  progress  of  child  rights \nin  the  international  arena  have  simultaneously  been  evolved  and \nrecognised in India.\n\n170. The material deprivation of health, education, employment and life \nopportunities  wreaked  by  child  marriage  is  an  affront  to  cherished \nconstitutional  principles  of  equality,  liberty  and  free  expression. \nChildren who are thrown into forced marriages are deprived of their \nright to development of the child. Three quarters of a century after \nthe  commencement  of  the  Constitution,  child  marriage  remains  a \npresent  and  continuous  threat  to  our  society,  social  progress  and \nindividual  liberty.  The  Constitution  does  not  countenance  such  an \naffront.  We  shall  trace  the  gamut  of  rights  accruing  against  child \nmarriage from the Constitution. \n\n171. The right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution258 \nis violated by the commission of child marriage. All children married \nas  minors  are  denied  their  right  to  choice  and  autonomy,  right  to \neducation, right to sexuality and the right to development of the child. \nGirls  who  are  married  as  children  are  denied  their  right  to  health. \nFirst, we shall analyze the right to choice, autonomy and sexuality, \nthen we shall explore the right to health. We shall thereafter trace \nthe  right  to  childhood  which  includes  the  right  to  education  and \ndevelopment.\n\nA.  Right to self-determination: choice, autonomy and sexuality \n\nof children\n\n172. Life’s meaning for any person is animated by their dignity, the ability \nto  make  free  choices,  the  autonomy  to  have  them  translated  into \nreality and to plan the peaks and troughs of life in good health. The \njourney a person travels from birth to death is made meaningful and \nenjoyable  by  the  realization  of  these  rights  which  are  guaranteed \nunder Article 21. \n\n173. Child  marriage  deprives  children  of  their  agency,  autonomy  and \nright  to  fully  develop  and  enjoy  their  childhood.  The  right  to  free \nchoice and autonomy in marriage encompasses three fundamental \nrights:  the  right  to  free  and  informed  consent,  the  right  against \ngender  based  violence,  and  the  right  to  sexual  autonomy. These \n\n258  Article 21, The Constitution of India. \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1602 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ninterconnected rights form the foundation for ensuring that marriage \nis  a  consensual  partnership  rather  than  a  coercive  arrangement, \nparticularly when addressing the issue of child marriage.\n\n174. Girls who are married off early are not only denied their childhood \nbut  are  also  forced  into  social  isolation  on  account  of  being  cutoff \nfrom their natal family, friends and other support systems. They are \nleft to the mercies of their marital home and in-laws and denied their \ninnocence which is native to a meaningful childhood experience. Boys \nwho are married early are forced to take up more responsibilities and \nare pressured to play the role of a provider to the family, earlier in \nlife. Patriarchy requires members of a marital union to play specific \nroles. It forces men to play the public role in a marriage and fend for \nthe  family  by  being  responsible  for  its  economic  and  occupational \ndevelopment. Both sexes are adversely affected by forced and early \nmarriage. \n\n175. In  India,  marriage  has  traditionally  been  a  religious  ceremony \norganised by the families of the bride and groom. The union is looked \nat as an integration of the two families and the object of facilitating \nan  organically  compatible  relationship  between  the  bride  and  the \ngroom  is  inconsequential.  The  mandate  to  recreate  a  patriarchal \nfamily structure is tied to social norms and expectations. One of the \nprimary  manifestations  of  this  is  the  control  over  sexuality.  While \nsocial  norms  rooted  in  a  patriarchal  mindset  seek  to  control  the \nsexuality of all persons, its nexus with child marriage is undeniable. \n\n176. Patriarchy  offends  the  most  basic  rights  of  people  by  creating  a \nhierarchy-based order of subjugation and static power distribution in \nsociety. When an institution of patriarchy operates, it never denies \nrights  in  a  unidimensional  way.  The  frontal  assault  of  patriarchal \ninstitutions is in, all at once, denying any deviance and valuing some \nover others. In the instance of child marriage, the right to sexuality \nof a person is systematically dismantled. The assault starts with the \nsexualisation of the child at a tender age. As we have stated above, \nmarriage is an institution with legal standing in which sexual conduct \nis  legitimised  and  promoted  by  the  State  and  society.  Marrying  in \nchildhood has the effect of objectifying the child. The practice of child \nmarriage imposes mature burdens on children who are not physically \nor mentally prepared to comprehend the significance of marriage. \nWhen  women  are  forced  into  marriages  to  protect  their  ‘chastity’ \nand ‘virginity’ she is denied her right to sexuality, bodily autonomy \nand the freedom to make choices for herself as she sees fit.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1603\n\n177. The  minor  is  then  boxed  with  the  expectation  of  compulsory \nheterosexuality. The ability of a person to experience sexual desire \norganically  and  to  navigate  their  choice  in  intimacy  is  effaced \nat  the  altar  of  tradition  and  social  norm.  At  an  age  which  must \nbe  instructed  by  the  ability  to  make  mistakes  and  learn  from  life \nexperiences,  children  are  stunted  and  forcibly  fit  into  boxes.  The \nmulti-dimensional  assault  of  child  marriage  is  therefore  not  only \noppressive  to  heterosexual  girls  and  boys  but  also  to  all  gender \nand sexual minorities. Choices in matters of sexuality are integral \nto  human  desire.  Our  Constitution  recognises  the  right  a  person \nhas over all aspects of their sexuality.259 The control of the sexuality \nof  a  girl  child  from  orthodox  moral  virtues  restricts  her  ability  to \nexperience  life  in  its  fullest  dimension.  Sexuality  is  not  only  the \norientation a person may have in matters of romance and intimacy \nbut also the ability to navigate the desires of a person regardless \nof their choice of partner or the option not to have a partner. Men \nand women alike are victimised by compulsory heterosexuality. In \nchild marriage, their limited agency within heteropatriarchy is also \ntaken away in infancy.\n\n178. Upon marriage, a girl is expected to bear children and prove her \nfertility. Decisions of reproduction are withdrawn from the girl and \nplaced in the hands of the family. The right to choice and autonomy \nof  a  woman  who  is  married  as  a  child  is  violated  by  the  system \nof  child  marriage.  When  minor  girls  are  forced  to  make  conjugal \nrelations,  they  experience  post-traumatic  stress  and  depression \nemanating from sexual abuse by an elder partner.260 Child marriage \nleads  to  irreversible  physical  and  psychological  damage  in  girls. \nHer choice is eviscerated in matters of selection of partner, time of \nmarriage,  reproductive  freedom  and  sexuality. Article  21  protects \nthese rights.261\n\n179. In  X  v.  Principal  Secretary,262  a  three-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court \nspeaking through one of us (DY Chandrachud, CJ) held that the right \nto choice and autonomy includes the right to reproductive freedom. \nElucidating on the contours of this right, the Court held as follows:\n\n259  Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1; Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39.\n\n260  NCPCR (2017). A Statistical Analysis of Child Marriage in India, Based on Census, 2011. Young Lives \n\nand National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.\n\n261  Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan KM (2018) 10 SCC 1; X v. Principal Secretary (2023) 9 SCC 433\n\n262 \n\n[2022] 12 SCR 246 : (2023) 9 SCC 433\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1604 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n“101. The ambit of reproductive rights is not restricted to \nthe  right  of  women  to  have  or  not  have  children.  It  also \nincludes the constellation of freedoms and entitlements that \nenable a woman to decide freely on all matters relating to \nher  sexual  and  reproductive  health.  Reproductive  rights \ninclude  the  right  to  access  education  and  information \nabout contraception and sexual health, the right to decide \nwhether  and  what  type  of  contraceptives  to  use,  the \nright  to  choose  whether  and  when  to  have  children,  the \nright  to  access  safe  and  legal  abortions,  and  the  right \nto  reproductive  healthcare.  Women  must  also  have  the \nautonomy to make decisions concerning these rights, free \nfrom coercion or violence.”\n\n180. This  Court  has  also  articulated  the  right  to  self-determination  in \nNational  Legal  Services  Authority  v.  Union  of  India.263  Choice \nand  autonomy  are  the  vocabulary  in  which  self-determination  is \nexercised. This court held that the right to self-determination which \nis  protected  under Article  21  of  the  Constitution  includes  the  right \nof  a  person  to  determine  their  gender.  The  meaningful  realisation \nof  this  right  assumes  that  the  underlying  conditions  in  the  society \nare feasible for its free exercise. This Court in NALSA (supra) has \nheld that the right to self-determination is an integral part of personal \nautonomy and self-expression and falls within the realm of personal \nliberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.\n\n181. A nine-Judge Bench of this Court in KS Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J) \nv.  Union  of  India,264  held  that  the  fundamental  right  to  privacy \nconnotes  the  right  to  spatial  control,  decisional  autonomy,  and \ninformation control. This Court held that privacy is an essential aspect \nof dignity and protects the ability to make choices for oneself. This \nCourt has conclusively held that personal aspects of life, including \nfamily, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are intrinsic to \nthe  dignity  of  an  individual  and  enjoys  protection  under Article  21. \nFrom this emerges the ability of a person to retain autonomy of their \nbody and mind. \n\n182. The Court held that liberty enables the individual to have a choice \nof preferences on various facets of life including what and how one \n\n263 \n\n[2014] 5 SCR 119 : (2014) 5 SCC 438\n\n264 \n\n[2017] 10 SCR 569 : (2017) 10 SCC 1 at 298\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1605\n\nwill  eat,  the  way  one  will  dress,  the  faith  one  will  espouse  and  a \nmyriad  other  matters  on  which  autonomy  and  self-determination \nrequire a choice to be made within the privacy of the mind. In Anuj \nGarg v. Hotel Association of India,265 a three-Judge Bench of this \ncourt held that the right to self-determination is an integral offshoot \nof gender justice discourse. Justice SB Sinha speaking for the Court \nheld that the law and its enforcement strategies must reflect the right \nof women to freedom. \n\n183. Despite  the  enactment  of  the  PCMA,  the  abysmal  number  of \nprosecutions and the continued existence of the practice violates the \nessence of this Court’s holding. These rights and values are equally \niterated in international law to which India owes an obligation. \n\nB.  Right to health\n\n184. The  right  to  reproductive  freedom  which  we  have  traced  above  is \npart of the constellation of rights in which the right to the health of a \nperson also finds its place. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees \nthe right to life and personal liberty. Neither of these elements could \nbe completely fulfilled without the ability of individuals to lead a healthy \nlife. Our Constitution recognises the right to health as an inalienable \naspect  of  the  right  to  life  and  personal  liberty  under Article  21.266 \nWomen who are married young are forced to bear children earlier \nin life. They are likely to have their first childbirth before the age of \neighteen and are likely to conceive more than once within twenty-four \nmonths. The health penalty imposed on women in child marriages is \nwrit large in the complications arising from adolescent pregnancies. \nTeenage  pregnancy  leads  to  health  complications  such  as  fistula, \npregnancy complications and death during childbirth. Early childbirth \nalso leads to the deterioration of maternal mortality and morbidity. \n\n185. The maternal morbidity is associated with adolescent fertility – typical \nto child marriage. It is marked by common negative health outcomes \nsuch as anaemia, high blood pressure, toxaemia, delayed or obstructed \nlabour, complications in pregnancy and weight loss during lactation.267 \n\n265 \n\n[2007] 12 SCR 991 : (2008) 3 SCC 1\n\n266  Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 286; Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samiti v. State \n\nof West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37\n\n267  Jaya  Sagade.  Child  Marriage  in  India:  Socio-legal  and  human  Rights  Dimensions.  Oxford  University \n\nPress, 2nd ed. (2012) 17.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1606 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nThe  adverse  health  effects  of  early  marriage  and  pregnancy  have \ndented  the  nutritional  status  of  adolescent  girls  in  India.  These  ill \nhealth outcomes haunt the woman throughout her life cause severe \nimpediments in navigating the daily trifles and occasions of life. \n\n186. Studies have shown that women married as children are more likely to \nbe sterilized earlier in life. The sterilization is associated with families \ngetting the desired number of children earlier in the marital life of the \ncouple. Sterilization of women in child marriage is indicative of loss \nof control of a woman over her own reproductive choices. This also \nleads to more unprotected sex which may expose women to risks \nof contracting sexually transmitted diseases like HIV.\n\n187. In  Independent  Thought  v.  Union  of  India,268  this  Court  struck \ndown the marital exception to rape in Section 375 IPC as it relates \nto underage wives. The Court had the opportunity to delve into the \neffects of child marriage and its interposition with the right to health. \nJustice Deepak Gupta in his opinion has traced the right to health \nin the context of child marriage as follows:\n\n“179.  There  can  be  no  dispute  that  every  citizen  of  this \ncountry has the right to get good healthcare. Every citizen \ncan  expect  that  the  State  shall  make  best  endeavours \nfor ensuring that the health of the citizen is not adversely \naffected. By now it is well settled by a catena of judgments \nof this Court that the “right to life” envisaged in Article 21 \nof the Constitution of India is not merely a right to live an \nanimal existence. This Court has repeatedly held that \nright to life means a right to live with human dignity. \nLife should be meaningful and worth living. Life has \nmany  shades.  Good  health  is  the  raison  d’être  of  a \ngood life. Without good health there cannot be a good \nlife. In the case of a minor girl child good health would \nmean her right to develop as a healthy woman. This \nnot only requires good physical health but also good \nmental health. The girl child must be encouraged to \nbloom into a healthy woman. The girl child must not \nbe deprived of her right of choice.....”\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\n268 \n\n[2017] 13 SCR 821 : (2017) 10 SCC 800\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1607\n\n188. Child marriage inflicts tangible and lifelong physical and mental injuries \nto its members. The right to health is made illusory by all accounts \nwithin such an institution. The effect of child marriage denies women \ntheir health which is vital to lead a dignified life. \n\nC.  Right to childhood: education and development\n\n189. Childhood  represents  the  best  of  what  human  life  has  to  offer. A \ngood  childhood  is  marked  by  limitless  imagination  and  the  ability \nto dream big. The audacity to envision futures filled with success, \nhappiness, divergence and enjoyment occurs naturally to all – but \nis manifested most authentically in childhood. The right to childhood \nis  the  right  to  be  able  to  develop  the  experiences  of  childhood \ninto  tangible  life  skills  and  intellectual  pursuits.  It  is  marked  by \nthe expectation of the child that they are not on their own but are \nentitled to the supportive network of their parents, siblings, family, \nfriends and the entire society. As the saying goes – it takes a village \nto raise a child. The foremost method by which society commits to \ndeveloping a child is by imparting education. Institutions of learning \nare centres for society to channel knowledge and experience and \nmake them available to children. Education allows its recipients to \nbenefit  from  the  best  of  human  advances  and  claim  a  degree  of \nownership in its fruits. \n\n190. Education allows a person to develop and articulate their thoughts \nand learn the language of global engagement. It is a call for greater \nemancipation  of  the  mind.  Education  breathes  life  into  intellect, \ndimension into perspective and openness in minds. It opens doors \nto employment opportunities and enables people to stand on their \nown feet in professional and personal pursuits of life. The detrimental \neffect of not being educated affects girls most starkly since they are \nalready vulnerable to agents of oppression on account of their gender. \nMarriage for most women in patriarchal societies is an announcement \nof educational conclusion. \n\n191. It  is  uncommon  for  women  to  continue  education  after  marriage \nwithout the express approval and wish of the in-laws and husband. \nThe imposition of a marital family on the education of women may \nbe  an  experience  common  to  all  women.  But  when  the  woman  is \nmarried as a child, her education is arrested in place during a pivotal \nperiod of brain development. The minority of a woman’s age at the \ntime of her marriage has a heightened impact on her education. The \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1608 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nright to primary education is a fundamental right expressly enshrined \nunder Article 21-A. \n\n192. However,  the  right  to  education  under  Article  21  holds  broader \nsignificance. The right to information about routine ways to make \nlife  meaningful  and  be  educated  on  the  adverse  effects  of  child \nmarriage  falls  under Article  21.  Children  are  entitled  to  be  aware \nof their rights and the ill effects that marriage unleashes on them. \nThe  entitlement  of  the  child  flows  from  the  right  to  education. \nEducation cannot be restricted to pedantic and bookish classroom \nlearning. The State certainly has an obligation to provide free and \ncompulsory education to all between the ages of six and fourteen. \nThe  mandatory  minimum  prescribed  by  Article  21-A,  however, \ncannot  restrict  the  right  of  children  to  be  informed  of  significant \nand life altering dangers.\n\n193. In a litany of judgments, this Court has firmly grounded the right to \neducation into our constitutional jurisprudence.269 While dealing with a \nPIL against physically and mentally challenged children being kept in \njails, this Court in Sheela Barse II v. Union of India270 has recognised \nthat  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  ensure  the  full  development  of  a \nchild’s  personality.  The  articulation  of  the  right  to  development  of \na  child puts a positive obligation  on the State  to create conditions \nfeasible and resources necessary for the full development of children. \nIn  addition  to  the  rights  tracible  to  Part  III  of  the  Constitution,  the \ndevelopment of child is also a part of the Directive Principles of State \nPolicy.271Article 39 stipulates certain principles of policy to be followed \nby the State. Clause (f) of Article 39 reads as follows:\n\n“(f)  that  children  are  given  opportunities  and  facilities  to \ndevelop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom \nand  dignity  and  that  childhood  and  youth  are  protected \nagainst  exploitation  and  against  moral  and  material \nabandonment.”\n\n194. The duty of the State corresponds to the right to development of a \nchild which is tracible to Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 15. The right \n\n269  Unni Krishnan JP v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645; Society For Unaided Private Schools of \nRajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1; Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, 2009 INSC 498; Bachpan \nBachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC  1;  Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya  v. \nState of M.P. (2013) 15 SCC 677; Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 433. \n\n270 \n\n[1983] 2 SCR 337 : 1983 AIR 378 \n\n271 \n\n‘DPSP’\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1609\n\ncomprehends the ability of a child to exercise free speech, express \nauthenticity and live a life of liberty and dignity. It falls on the State \nto  ensure  that  children  are  informed  of  ways  in  which  their  life  is \nlikely to interact with society and the cautions to bear in the journey \nthey chart out in life so that they may enjoy and exercise their rights \nunder Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a) and 21. \n\n195. Child marriage is one such threat. Sexual conduct within this relation, \nor for that matter outside marriage, is another aspect of education \nand  information.  Sex  education  becomes  imperative  for  children \nto  process  experiences  which  they  are  to  inevitably  encounter.  In \nJust  Rights  for  Children  Alliance  v.  S  Harish,272  one  of  us  (JB \nPardiwala, J) has lucidly reflected on the importance of sex education. \nThe Court has opined that:\n\n“238. In India, the misconceptions about sex education are \nwidespread  and  contribute  to  its  limited  implementation \nand  effectiveness.  Many  people,  including  parents  and \neducators,  hold  conservative  views  that  discussing  sex \nis inappropriate, immoral, or embarrassing. This societal \nstigma  creates  a  reluctance  to  talk  openly  about  sexual \nhealth,  leading  to  a  significant  knowledge  gap  among \nadolescents.\n\n239. One prevalent misconception is that sex education \nencourages  promiscuity  and  irresponsible  behaviour \namong youth. Critics often argue that providing information \nabout sexual health and contraception will lead to increased \nsexual activity among teenagers. However, research has \nshown that comprehensive sex education actually delays \nthe onset of sexual activity and promotes safer practices \namong  those  who  are  sexually  active.  [Padminin  Iyer  & \nPeter Aggleton, Seventy years of sex education - A Critical \nReview, 74(1) HEALTH EDUC. J. 3 (2015).]\n\n240. Another  common  belief  is  that  sex  education  is  a \nWestern concept that does not align with traditional Indian \nvalues.  This  view  has  led  to  resistance  from  various \nstate governments, resulting in bans on sex education in \nschools  in  some  states.  This  type  of  opposition  hinders \n\n272 \n\n[2024] 10 SCR 154 : 2024 INSC 716.\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1610 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe implementation of comprehensive and effective sexual \nhealth  programs,  leaving  many  adolescents  without \naccurate information. This is what causes teenagers and \nyoung  adults  to  turn  to  the  internet,  where  they  have \naccess to unmonitored and unfiltered information, which \nis often misleading and can plant the seed for unhealthy \nsexual behaviours.\n\n241.  Additionally,  there  is  a  misconception  that  sex \neducation only covers biological aspects of reproduction. \nEffective  sex  education  encompasses  a  wide  range  of \ntopics,  including  consent,  healthy  relationships,  gender \nequality, and respect for diversity. Addressing these topics \nis  crucial  for  reducing  sexual  violence  and  promoting \ngender equity.”\n\n196. In  the  context  of  child  marriage,  we  have  demonstrated  the \nheightened risk of health complications to arise out of adolescent \nsex  and  childbearing.  While  girls  married  as  children  have  to \nbear  the  consequences  of  this,  they  are  not  the  only  party  to  the \nsexual  relation  which  causes  negative  health  outcomes.  Boys \nmarried at young age equally feel pressures associated with sexual \nperformance.  Often,  the  only  resource  available  to  them  is  their \npeer  group.  The  performance  of  sexual  activity  is  an  avenue  for \nmen to exhibit their masculinity. Because of their tender mind and \npatriarchal notions of masculinity and sexual dominance, they are \nlikely to fall into egregious misinformation by their peers and commit \nviolence  on  their  child  brides.  The  issue  of  approaching  boys  in \nchild marriage with care, compassion and affection is unfortunately \nlost  in  some  mainstream  discourse  on  child  marriage.  While  girls \nare  undoubtedly  affected  by  child  marriage  disproportionately,  we \nought to also account for the tender minds of men who are forced \ninto marriages as children. \n\n197. The right to childhood belongs to all sexes. Education- primary, sexual \nand life enhancing – is integral to the right to childhood. Realisation of \nthis right is crucial in dealing with the evils of child marriage. Abuses \nof patriarchy are learnt behaviours. What is learnt can be unlearned \nor better yet, disabused early on. Education in all aspects allows for \nthe debunking of harmful life choices and conducts which children \nmay adopt in the absence of better guidance. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1611\n\nD.  Reiterating  the  States’  obligations  towards  combatting \n\nchild marriage\n\n198. Under  IHRL,  the  State  has  a  concrete,  enforceable  obligation  to \nprevent and eliminate child marriage by ensuring that laws, policies, \nand social services align with international standards such as those \nin the CRC and the CEDAW. The state must establish and enforce a \nlegal framework that explicitly prohibits child marriage, accompanied \nby robust mechanisms for implementation and redress. \n\n199. States also have an obligation to monitor and enforce compliance \nwith these laws and to work closely with civil society organizations \nto implement effective interventions. The State’s role is not limited \nto merely punishing offenders but extends to creating an enabling \nenvironment  where  children  can  exercise  their  rights  freely.  This \nincludes the responsibility to not only to legislate against child marriage \nbut also to address the underlying socio-economic factors—poverty, \nlack  of  education,  and  gender  discrimination—that  perpetuate  this \npractice.\n\n200. The Directive Principles of State Policyin Part IV of the Constitution lay \ndown the fundamental principles in the governance of the country and \npress upon the State to apply them while making laws. Article 38(2) \nof  the  Constitution273  requires  the  state  to  promote  the  welfare  of \npeople and eliminate inequalities in opportunities: It states that:\n\n“38. State to secure a social order for the promotion \nof welfare of the people – \n\n…\n\n(2)  The  State  shall,  in  particular,  strive  to  minimize \nthe  inequalities  in  income,  and  endeavour  to  eliminate \ninequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only \namongst  individuals  but  also  amongst  groups  of  people \nresiding in different areas or engaged in different vocations.”\n\n201. This Article mandates the State to actively reduce inequalities and \npromote welfare, which is essential in addressing child marriage—a \npractice  that  disproportionately  affects  children  from  economically \nand  socially  disadvantaged  backgrounds.  By  targeting  inequalities \n\n273  Article 38(2), the Constitution of India 1950. \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1612 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nin income, status, and opportunities, Article 38(2) supports creating \nconditions where vulnerable children have better access to education, \nhealthcare, and social support. This, in turn, reduces the pressures \nthat  often  lead  to  early  marriage,  such  as  economic  dependency \nand limited future prospects, and enables children to pursue a life \nfree from the constraints imposed by early marital commitments.\n\n202. This Court has, in several landmark judgments, reinforced the State’s \npositive  obligation  to  protect  children’s  rights.  In  Sheela  Barse  II \n(supra) this court dealt with abandoned or destitute children lodged \nin various jails across the country for ‘safe custody.’The Court noted \nthat  the  National  Policy  for  the  Welfare  of  Children  contained  the \nfollowing preamble:\n\n“The  nation’s  children  are  a  supremely  important  asset. \nTheir  nurture  and  solicitude  are  our  responsibility. \nChildren’s programmes should find a prominent part \nin  our  national  plans  for  the  development  of  human \nresources,  so  that  our  children  grow  up  to  become \nrobust  citizens,  physically  fit,  mentally  alert  and \nmorally healthy, endowed with the skill and motivations \nneeded by society. Equal opportunities for development \nof all children during the period of growth should be our \naim,  for  this  would  serve  our  large  purpose  of  reducing \ninequality and ensuring social justice.”\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\n203. This Court observed that if a child is a “national asset” as per the \nNational Policy, the State bears the duty to nurture and ensure their \nfull development, underscoring the expectation that children not be \nsubjected  to  custodial  detention.  Here,  the  principles  of  care  and \nprotection  are  directly  relevant  to  child  marriage,  as  the  practice \nobstructs  the  full  and  healthy  development  of  minors  by  imposing \non  them  responsibilities  and  roles  they  are  neither  physically  nor \nemotionally prepared to undertake. Such an arrangement undermines \ntheir  potential  and  violates  their  rights  to  education,  health,  and \npersonal development, reinforcing cycles of poverty and inequality. \n\n204. In  this  context,  the  principle  of  parens  patriae—where  the  State \nassumes a protective role akin to that of a guardian—is particularly \nrelevant. The State’s intervention in preventing child marriage aligns \nwith  its  duty  to  act  in  the  best  interest  of  children,  ensuring  their \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1613\n\nsafety,  development,  and  freedom  from  practices  that  harm  their \nphysical,  emotional,  and  educational  prospects. This  principle  has \nbeen  repeatedly  upheld  by  the  judiciary  as  essential  in  upholding \nchild rights and creating a supportive environment that upholds their \nwell-being and growth into empowered, healthy citizens.\n\n205. Similarly,  in  Society  for  Unaided  Private  Schools  v.  Union  of \nIndia274 the Court addressed the constitutionality of Section 12 of the \nRight of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009. This \nprovision, which mandates a 25% reservation in schools for children \nfrom disadvantaged backgrounds, was challenged on the grounds \nthat it violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 of those who had established \nschools in the private sector. The Court upheld the constitutionality \nof this provision, finding the following:\n\n“222. The provisions referred to above and other provisions \nof international conventions indicate that the rights have \nbeen  guaranteed  to  the  children  and  those  rights  carry \ncorresponding  State  obligations  to  respect,  protect  and \nfulfil  the  realisation  of  children’s  rights.  The  obligation \nto protect implies the horizontal right which casts an \nobligation  on  the  State  to  see  that  it  is  not  violated \nby non-State actors. For non-State actors to respect \nchildren’s rights casts a negative duty of non-violation \nto protect children’s rights and a positive duty on them \nto prevent the violation of children’s rights by others, \nand also to fulfill children’s rights and take measures \nfor  progressive  improvement.  In  other  words,  in  the \nspheres  of  non-State  activity  there  shall  be  no  violation \nof children’s rights.”\n\n…\n\n224.  The  primary  responsibility  for  children’s  rights, \ntherefore, lies with the State and the State has to respect, \nprotect and fulfil children’s rights and has also got a duty \nto regulate the private institutions that care for children, to \nprotect children from violence or abuse, to protect children \nfrom economic exploitation, hazardous work and to ensure \nhuman treatment of children. Non-State actors exercising \n\n274 \n\n[2012] 2 SCR 715 : (2012) 6 SCC 1\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1614 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe  State  functions  like  establishing  and  running  private \neducational institutions are also expected to respect and \nprotect the rights of the child, but they are, not expected \nto surrender their rights constitutionally guaranteed.”\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\n206. These judgments affirm that the State must regulate private as well \nas non-State actors in ensuring children’s welfare and that the State \nholds primary responsibility for protecting children’s rights. Applied \nto  child  marriage,  these  principles  reiterate  that  the  State  must \nenact and enforce laws that prohibit child marriage while ensuring \nthat  social,  educational,  and  economic  protections  are  in  place  to \nprevent the practice.\n\nIX.  Way forward\n\n207. In  light  of  the  foregoing  analyses,  we  seek  to  formulate  specific \nguidelines for achieving the elimination of child marriage while bearing \nin  mind  the  delicate  socio-economic  interplay.  The  Union  submits \nthat  the  PCMA  focuses  on  two  key  pillars:  (a)  raising  awareness \nand  (b)  prosecution.  Despite  progress  in  awareness  campaigns, \nthere is still a pressing need to enhance accountability mechanisms, \nensure  mandatory  reporting,  and  rehabilitate  minors  affected  by \nchild  marriages.  Further  attention  is  required  to  make  the  legal \nframework  more  effective  by  addressing  loopholes  and  ensuring \nswift  action  against  offenders,  particularly  in  areas  with  high  child \nmarriage prevalence.\n\n208. Addressing child marriage requires an intersectional approach that \nacknowledges the overlapping vulnerabilities experienced by children, \nespecially  girls  from  marginalized  communities.  Intersectionality \ninvolves considering factors like gender, caste, socioeconomic status, \nand  geography,  which  often  increase  the  risks  of  early  marriage. \nPreventive strategies should therefore be tailored to the unique needs \nof various communities and focus on addressing the root causes of \nchild marriage, such as poverty, gender inequality, lack of education, \nand entrenched cultural practices.\n\n209. The  PCMA  as  a  social  legislation  will  only  succeed  through  the \ncollective  efforts  of  all  stakeholders  to  address  the  issue  within \na  broader  social  framework  which  emphasises  the  need  for  \nmulti-sectoral  coordination.  This  necessitates  the  enhancement  of \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1615\n\nreporting mechanisms, expansion of public awareness campaigns, \nand  investment  in  the  training  and  capacity-building  of  law \nenforcement officers and related actors. It is also crucial to regularly \nmonitor the implementation of the Act, conduct evaluations to identify \ngaps, and establish feedback mechanisms to continually refine and \nimprove responses to child marriage. As we issue these directions, \nwe emphasize the need for more comprehensive approaches and \ncommunity-driven strategies to ensure the complete eradication of \nchild marriages.\n\n210. We  frame  the  following  guidelines  for  the  effective  and  useful \nimplementation  of  the  PCMA.  The  orientation  of  these  guidelines \nis  to  prioritise  prevention  before  protection  and  protection  before \npenalisation.  We  are  cognizant  of  the  impact  that  criminalisation \nhas on families and communities. To ensure effective use of penal \nprovisions  in  the  PCMA,  it  is  imperative  that  there  is  widespread \nawareness  and  education  about  child  marriage  and  the  legal \nconsequences of its commission. We therefore direct that the following \nguidelines be interpreted to expand effective implementation of the \npreventive measures under PCMA analysed in Part V(A)(iii) of this \njudgment.\n\n211.  We  must  not  be  understood  to  discourage  prosecution  of  those \nwho commit illegal acts. However, the aim of the law enforcement \nmachinery  must  not  be  solely  focused  on  increasing  prosecutions \nwithout making the best efforts to prevent and prohibit child marriage. \nThe focus on penalisation reflects a harms-based approach which \nwaits  for  a  harm  to  occur  before  taking  any  steps.  This  approach \nhas  proven  to  be  ineffective  at  bringing  about  social  change.  We \ntherefore direct as follows:\n\nA.  Legal Enforcement\n\n1.  Appointment and accountability of CMPO\n\n1.1.  State  Governments  and  Union  Territories  (UTs)  must \nappoint  officers  solely  responsible  for  discharging  the \nfunctions  of  CMPO  at  the  district  level.  These  officers \nshould not be burdened with additional duties that could \nimpede their focus on preventing child marriage;\n\n1.2.  If a CMPO believes that they lack the necessary resources \nto safely and comprehensively fulfil their functions, they \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1616 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nmust  submit  a  request  to  the  relevant  State  Ministry \nof  Women  and  Child  Development.  The  Ministry  shall \nconduct an assessment and address the resource needs \nwithin  three  months  of  the  date  on  which  the  request \nwas made;\n\n1.3.  To enable personal accountability and ensure immediate \npreventive  measures  are  taken  against  any  planned \nsolemnization of child marriages - each State and UT is \ndirected to upload quarterly reports from CMPOs on their \nofficial  websites.  These  reports  should  detail  the  steps \ntaken  to  prevent  child  marriages  and  the  outcomes  of \ninvestigations; \n\n1.4.  The  Ministry  of  Women  and  Child  Development  and \nMinistry of Home in each State/UT shall conduct quarterly \nperformance  reviews  of  CMPOs  and  law  enforcement \nagencies to assess:\n\n1.4.1.  The  effectiveness  of  child  marriage  prevention \n\ninitiatives; \n\n1.4.2.  Response times and outcomes of reported case; \n\n1.4.3.  The  level  of  cooperation  and  communication \nbetween  CMPOs  and  local  law  enforcement \nagencies; \n\n1.4.4.  The engagement with communities and stakeholders \n\nin prevention efforts; \n\n1.4.5.  The  status  of  CMPOs  regarding  deployment  to \nadditional  duties,  including  the  reasons  for  such \nassignments, to ensure that their primary focus on \nchild marriage prevention is not compromised; and\n\n1.4.6.  Recommendations for improvements based on the \nassessments, including identifying areas requiring \nadditional support or resources. \n\n1.5.  The Ministry of Women and Child Development is directed \nto execute mandatory training refreshers for CMPOs every \nsix months. These refreshers will ensure that all personnel \nare updated on:\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1617\n\n1.5.1.  Legal changes relevant to child marriage prevention; \n\n1.5.2.  Best practices and effective strategies for combating \n\nchild marriage; \n\n1.5.3.  Community  engagement  techniques  to  foster \n\ncollaboration with local stakeholders; \n\n1.5.4.  Advocacy skills to effectively promote child rights \nand  raise  awareness  about  the  negative  impacts \nof child marriage; \n\n1.5.5.  Cultural  sensitivity  training  to  address  the  social \nfactors  contributing  to  child  marriage,  ensuring \na  nuanced  understanding  of  local  contexts  and \npractices; and\n\n1.5.6.  Evaluation  and  reporting  mechanisms  to  assess \nthe  effectiveness  of  their  initiatives  and  adjust \nstrategies accordingly.\n\n2.  District-Level  Responsibility  for  Prevention  of  Child \n\nMarriages\n\n2.1.  In  addition  to  the  mandate  of  the  CMPO  under  \nSection 16(3)(a) – the Collectors and Superintendents of \nPolice in each district across India shall also be responsible \nfor  actively  preventing  child  marriages  within  their \ndistricts. They shall have the authority and responsibility \nto  prosecute  all  individuals  who  facilitate  or  solemnize \nchild  marriages,  including  those  who  knowingly  assist, \npromote,  or  bless  such  marriages,  even  if  reported  in \npublic events or media; \n\n2.2.  The  CMPO,  the  Collectors  and  Superintendents  of \nPolice in each district shall inform the State Government  \nabout any impediments they encounter  in the discharge \nof  their  functions,  including  but  not  limited  to,  social \nboycotts; and\n\n2.3.  Specific  emphasis  must  be  placed  on  preventing \nmass  marriages,  often  conducted  in  public,  where  the \nparticipation  of  government  or  law  enforcement  officials \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1618 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ncould  inadvertently  lend  legitimacy  to  child  marriage \nceremonies. Any  failure  by  district  authorities  to  act  in \naccordance  with  this  mandate  will  warrant  immediate \nadministrative action and disciplinary proceedings against \nthe responsible officials.\n\n3.  Establishment of a Specialized Police Unit\n\n3.1.  Recognizing  the  sensitivity  and  unique  aspects  of  child \nmarriage  cases,  a  specialized  police  unit  is  deemed \nessential.  The  State  Ministries  of  Home  Affairs  shall \nconsider  the  viability  of  integrating  the  Special  Juvenile \nPolice Unit into the child marriage prevention framework. \nThe  SJPU,  already  trained  in  handling  juvenile  and \nsensitive  cases,  shall  be  deployed  to  manage  cases  of \nchild marriage;\n\n3.2.  The  Ministry  should  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  this \nintegration and provide necessary resources and support \nto the SJPU for optimal performance in addressing child \nmarriage issues;\n\n3.3.  The SJPU, supported by trained personnel and resources, \nwill  ensure  that  child  marriage  cases  are  handled  with \nappropriate sensitivity and urgency. The unit shall work in \ncoordination with CMPOs and district authorities to ensure \nswift preventive action and enforce legal accountability; and\n\n3.4.  The Ministry of Women and Child Development is directed \nto  consider  the  viability  and  prescribe  a  format  for  the \nSJPUs to biannually report the following:\n\n3.4.1.  The  outcomes  of  legal  actions  taken  against \nperpetrators  of  child  marriage,  including  any \nconvictions or pending cases; \n\n3.4.2.  The  number  of  awareness  programs  conducted \nand  the  community  engagement  efforts  made  to \nprevent child marriages; \n\n3.4.3.  The status of collaboration with local law enforcement \nand  child  protection  agencies  in  addressing  child \nmarriage; and\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1619\n\n3.4.4.  Any challenges faced in the reporting period and \nrecommendations  for  improving  child  marriage \nprevention efforts.\n\n4.  Establishment of a Special Child Marriage Prohibition Unit\n\n4.1.  The State Governments and UTs shall constitute a State \nSpecial Child Marriage Prohibition Unit and where there \nare more than one CMPOs in any district, a District level \nSpecial Child Marriage Prohibition Unit;\n\n4.2.  The  Unit  shall  comprise  of  all  the  CMPOs  of  the  State \nor  the  District,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  shall  include \nfive social workers having experience of working against \nchild  marriage  or  on  child  rights. At  least  two  of  such \nsocial  workers  shall  be  women. All  the  CMPOs  of  the  \nUnit  shall  be  provided  special  training  on  dealing  with \nchild marriages; \n\n4.3.  The Units shall tailor courses and resources with the help \nof professionals dealing with the mental health concerns of \nthe CMPOs. The Unit shall also provide forums for CMPOs \nto  raise  any  difficulties  or  grievances  they  encounter  in \ndischarge  of  their  functions,  including  but  not  limited  to, \nany difficulty relating to social ostracization for preventing \nchild marriages; and\n\n4.4.  The  Unit  shall  act  as  a  forum  of  sharing  best  practices, \ninviting trained professionals to dispense knowledge and \ncollectivise and redress grievances.\n\nB.  Judicial Measures\n\n1.  Empowering  Magistrates  to  Take  Suo  Moto  Action  and \n\nIssue Preventive Injunctions\n\n1.1.  All Magistrates vested with authority under Section 13 of the \nProhibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, are directed to take \nproactive measures, including issuing suo motu injunctions \nto prevent the solemnization of child marriages; and\n\n1.2.  Magistrates  are  encouraged  to  particularly  focus  on \n“auspicious  days”  known  for  mass  weddings,  when  the \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1620 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\noccurrence  of  child  marriages  is  notably  high.  Upon \nreceiving  credible  information  or  even  upon  suspicion, \nMagistrates should use their judicial powers to halt such \nmarriages and ensure child protection.\n\n2. Exploration of Special Fast-Track Courts for Child Marriage \n\nCases\n\n2.1.  The  Union  Government,  in  coordination  with  State \nGovernments,  is  directed  to  assess  the  feasibility  of \nestablishing special fast-track courts exclusively to handle \ncases under the PCMA. These courts will expedite case \nproceedings,  thereby  preventing  prolonged  delays  that \noften lead to additional harm for the affected children; and\n\n2.2.  A status report on the establishment, resource allocation, \nand potential effectiveness of these fast-track courts shall \nbe submitted to this Court within a year from now onwards. \n\n3.  Mandatory Action Against Neglectful Public Servants\n\n3.1.  It  is  directed  that  strict  disciplinary  and  legal  action  be \ntaken against any public servant found to be in deliberate \nneglect  of  duty  concerning  child  marriage  cases  within \ntheir jurisdiction. As stipulated under Section 199(C) of the \nBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), 2023, public \nofficials who fail to act in child marriage cases, particularly \nthose  with  knowledge  of  imminent  marriages,  shall  be \nsubject  to  stringent  punishment.  This  direction  is  aimed \nat  reinforcing  accountability  among  public  officials  and \nensuring that child marriage cases receive immediate and \nappropriate  action  at  all  administrative  and  enforcement \nlevels.\n\nC.  Community Involvement\n\n1.  Annual  Action  Plans  and  Community-Centric  Capacity \n\nBuilding\n\n1.1.  Each  State  and  UTs  is  directed  to  develop  an Annual \nAction Plan to prevent child marriages, incorporating Key \nPerformance  Indicators  (KPIs)  that  reflect  local  cultural \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1621\n\nand social contexts. This plan should include measurable \ngoals tailored to address community-specific beliefs and \npractices related to child marriage; and\n\n1.2.  States  and  UTs  shall  incorporate  regular  orientation \nprograms,  seminars,  and  workshops  in  their  annual \nschedules aimed at building the capacity of all stakeholders. \nThese initiatives should target CMPOs, Gram Panchayat \nor  Municipality  office  holders,  government  officials, \nschool  principals  and  teachers,  representatives  of  non-\ngovernmental  organizations,  local  representatives,  and \nPara  Legal  Volunteers  (PLVs),  fostering  a  collaborative \napproach to child marriage prevention. \n\n2.  Adoption of the Child Marriage Free Village Initiative\n\n2.1.  Inspired  by  the  “Open  Defecation  Free  Village”  model \nunder  the  Swachh  Bharat  Mission,  a  “Child  Marriage \nFree  Village”  initiative  should  be  launched,  encouraging \nPanchayats and community leaders to play an active role \nin preventing and reporting child marriages; and\n\n2.2.  This initiative will mobilize local communities to collectively \ndiscourage  child  marriages,  with  the  involvement  of \nPanchayats in monitoring and promoting “Child Marriage \nFree”  certifications  for  villages  and  Gram  Panchayats. \nThis designation should be publicly celebrated to reinforce \na culture where the rights and well-being of children are \nparamount. \n\nD.  Awareness Campaigns\n\n1.  Awareness Campaigns Led by CMPOs in Schools, Religious \n\nInstitutions, and Panchayats\n\n1.1.  CMPOs  are  directed  to  conduct  regular,  structured \nawareness campaigns across schools, religious institutions, \nand Panchayats. These campaigns must include impactful \nhoardings and slogans in local languages that highlight the \nlegal penalties for child marriage, health risks associated \nwith early and forced marriages, and their socio-economic \nconsequences; and\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1622 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n1.2.  Schools  and  local  institutions  must  conduct  monthly \ninformational  sessions,  leveraging  creative  methods  like \nplays,  storytelling,  and  interactive  sessions  to  engage \nyoung  people  on  the  topic  of  child  marriage  prevention, \nemphasizing  gender  equality,  reproductive  rights,  and \npersonal agency.\n\n2.  Comprehensive Sexuality and Rights Education\n\n2.1.  All States and Union Territories are directed to integrate \ncomprehensive sexuality education275 into school curricula \nin line with the framework prescribed by the World Health \nOrganisation276 and leading thoughts in the field of CSE. \nThis education must include clear information on the legal \naspects  of  child  marriage,  gender  equality,  reproductive \nhealth rights, and the impacts of child marriage on physical \nand mental well-being; and\n\n2.2.  Educational content should be tailored for age- appropriateness \nand  be  culturally  sensitive,  with  particular  emphasis  on \nempowering students with knowledge of their legal rights, \nthe importance of delaying marriage, and understanding of \nsexual and reproductive health. \n\n3.  Educational Materials and Community Awareness Tools\n\n3.1.  Schools  in  regions  where  child  marriage  prevails  must \ninclude  information  on  child  marriage  prevention  within \nthe curriculum, with a dedicated section in textbooks that \noutlines  legal  protections,  health  risks,  and  preventive \nmeasures.  Visible  posters  or  charts  summarizing  this \ninformation  should  be  displayed  prominently  in  schools, \nGram Panchayats, and public institutions; and\n\n3.2.  Schools  must  adhere  to  a  reporting  protocol  whereby \nprincipals or teachers are required to report potential cases, \nsuch as sudden drop out of a girl child, to the appropriate \nauthorities immediately.\n\n275 \n\n‘CSE’\n\n276  CSE  is  the  imparting  of  accurate,  age-appropriate  information  about  sexuality  and  their  sexual  and \nreproductive  health  –  which  is  critical  for  their  health  and  survival;  See  World  Health  Organization, \n(2023), “What is Comprehensive Sexuality Education?”. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1623\n\n4.  Targeted Community Awareness Campaigns\n\n4.1.  Regular  community-based  campaigns  are  mandated, \nspecifically targeting parents, respected members of the \ncommunity (including but not limited to teachers, principals \nand  local  body  leaders)  and  local  influencers.  CMPOs \nare  instructed  to  work  with  these  groups  to  challenge \nentrenched  social  norms,  using  community  discussions, \nmultimedia  presentations,  and  testimonials  from  child \nmarriage survivors to shift perceptions; and\n\n4.2.  Community-focused initiatives should also include public \nforums  where  the  adverse  effects  of  child  marriage  are \nopenly  discussed,  alongside  the  benefits  of  educating \nyoung women.\n\n5.  Empowerment Programs for Girls and Young Women\n\n5.1.  All States and Union Territories are directed to implement \nmentorship and leadership programs that encourage young \ngirls  to  become  active  participants  in  their  communities. \nThese programs should include workshops on leadership \nskills,  public  speaking,  and  advocacy  training,  enabling \ngirls to become local ambassadors for change; and\n\n5.2.  Schools  and  local  organizations  should  establish  peer \ngroups  led  by  trained  mentors,  where  girls  can  safely \ndiscuss personal issues of home, family and public ongoings \nwhich may potentially force a girl into child marriage. \n\n6.  Helpline Awareness and Reporting Mechanisms\n\n5.1.  Comprehensive  awareness  of  helpline  numbers  such \nas  Childline  (1098)  and  Women  Helpline  (181)  should \nbe  included  in  all  educational  materials  and  community \ncampaigns. Schools, Panchayats, and local institutions are \nrequired to display these numbers prominently and ensure \nthat children and adolescents are aware of how to seek help.\n\nE.  Training/Capacity Building\n\n1.  Training for Community Health Workers and Educators\n\n1.1.  All  State  and  UTs  will  impart  specialized  training  to \nAnganwadi  Workers  (AWW), Auxiliary  Nurse-Midwives \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1624 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n(ANM),  and Accredited  Social  Health Activists  (ASHA) \nto enhance their role in the prevention of child marriage \nthrough  active  community  engagement.  This  training \nshould cover:\n\n1.1.1.  Identification of at-risk children and families, effective \ncommunication strategies to engage communities, \nand understanding the legal framework surrounding \nchild marriage; \n\n1.1.2.  Workshops on the socio-economic impacts of child \nmarriage  on  girls  and  families,  enabling  them  to \neffectively  communicate  these  consequences  to \ncommunity members; and\n\n1.1.3.  Effective  ways  and  strategies  to  deal  with  \ncrisis-management  and  render  immediate  and \nlong-term support to victims who may be in a crisis \nassociated  to  child  marriage.  This  may  include \npersons such as a girl vulnerable to child marriage \nherself; a peer, sibling or other person who fears that \nanother person may be at risk of child marriage; or \ngirls who have witnessed early or forced marriages \naround them. \n\n2.  Training for Law Enforcement and Judicial Officers\n\n2.1.  Police  officers,  particularly  those  in  the  Special  Juvenile \nPolice Units (SJPU), must undergo training focused on \nthe legal aspects of the PCMA, child rights, and sensitivity \ntowards  cases  involving  minors.  This  training  should \ninclude:\n\n2.1.1.  Protocols for handling child marriage cases, ensuring \nthe  protection  of  victims,  and  understanding  the \npsychological impact of child marriage on children \nand those affected around them; and\n\n2.1.2.  Regular  refresher  courses  on  human  rights  and \nthe  ethical  treatment  of  victims  in  accordance \nwith  the  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of \nChildren) Act. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1625\n\n3.  Capacity Building for Teachers and School Administrators\n\n3.1.  Teachers  and  school  administrators  will  be  trained  to \nrecognize  signs  of  potential  child  marriage  and  engage \nwith  students  regarding  their  rights  and  the  importance \nof education. \n\n4.  Empowerment of Local Leaders and Community Influencers\n\n4.1.  Training  programs  will  be  designed  for  local  leaders, \nincluding  members  of  Panchayati  Raj  Institutions  and \ncommunity  influencers,  focusing  on  their  critical  role  in \npreventing  child  marriage.  This  training  should  cover \nstrategies to challenge and change harmful social norms \nand practices that perpetuate child marriage within  their \ncommunities.\n\n5.  Engagement with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)\n\n5.1.  Collaborations with NGOs that focus on women’s rights \nand child protection will be established to train volunteers \nand staff on child marriage prevention. State authorities \nincluding the CMPO and SJPU must proactively identify \nand collaborate with NGOs on the practical and procedural \ndifficulties in preventing, prohibiting and prosecuting child \nmarriages. \n\n6.  Training for Health Care Providers\n\n6.1.  Healthcare providers, including doctors and counsellors, \nwill  be  trained  to  address  the  specific  health  risks \nassociated with child marriage. This training will include:\n\n6.1.1.  Counselling techniques for young women and girls, \nfocusing on reproductive health rights and the health \nconsequences of early marriage; and\n\n6.1.2.  Awareness of available resources for girls at risk \nand the referral processes for victims seeking help.\n\nF.  Educational and Social Support\n\n1.  Educational Incentives and Scholarships\n\n1.1.  The Ministry of Women and Child Development is directed \nto  consider  the  viability  of  implementing  comprehensive \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1626 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\neducational incentive programs specifically targeted at \ngirls at risk of child marriage. This includes:\n\n1.1.1.  Providing  scholarships  to  girls  for  secondary  and \nhigher education to encourage families to prioritize \neducation over early marriage; \n\n1.1.2.  Offering  stipends  or  financial  support  for  families \nwith  daughters  who  remain  in  school  beyond  the \nage of fifteen, as a tangible incentive for delaying \nmarriage; and\n\n1.1.3.  Creating  mentorship  programs  that  connect  at-\nrisk  girls  with  role  models  who  have  successfully \npursued education and career opportunities. \n\n2.  Social Welfare Programs\n\n2.1.  The Ministry of Women and Child Development will also \nconsider  developing  and  implementing  social  welfare \nprograms  to  assist  families  at  risk  of  engaging  in  child \nmarriage, including:\n\n2.1.1.  Conditional  cash  transfer  programs  that  provide \nfinancial  support  to  families  in  exchange  for \ncommitments to keep their daughters in school and \ndelay marriage until legal adulthood; \n\n2.1.2.  Access to vocational training and skill development \nprograms  for  families,  enabling  them  to  improve \ntheir  economic  status  and  lessen  reliance  on \nmarrying off daughters for financial relief; and\n\n2.1.3.  Support  services  for  families  facing  economic \nhardships,  such  as  food  assistance,  healthcare \nservices, and access to microfinance opportunities \nto promote sustainable livelihoods.\n\n3.  Convergence and Continuity of Services\n\n3.1.  The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs shall designate an \nappropriate  authority  who  shall  ensure  the  convergence \nof  services  across  various  government  departments \nand  agencies  to  create  a  cohesive  support  system  for \nvulnerable and at-risk communities. This includes:\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1627\n\n3.1.1.  Regular inter-departmental meetings to coordinate \nefforts and resources among education, health, social \nwelfare, and law enforcement sectors to address the \nmultifaceted nature of child marriage; and\n\n3.1.2.  Establishing  community-based  resource  centres \nthat  provide  information  and  support  related  to \neducation,  legal  rights,  and  social  services  to \nfamilies at risk of child marriage.\n\nG.  Monitoring and Accountability\n\n1.  Development of Standard Operating Procedures\n\n1.1.  The  National  Legal  Services Authority277  is  directed  to \nformulate a Standard Operating Procedure278 that provides \ncomprehensive guidelines for legal-support services, and \nlong-term  rehabilitation  plans  related  to  the  prevention, \nprotection, and rehabilitation of victims of child marriage \nfor lawyers and law-enforcement officers. NALSA is further \ndirected  to  dispatch  this  SOP  to  all  States  and  District \nLegal Services Authority where it may be used in assisting \naggrieved victims;\n\n1.2.  The  Ministry  of  Women  and  Child  Development,  in \nconsultation  with  State  Child  Protection  Societies279 \nand  local  government  bodies,  shall  draft  SOPs  focused \non  maintaining  detailed  registers.  These  registers  will \ndocument:\n\n1.2.1.  The  number  of  awareness  programs  and  \n\ncapacity-building initiatives conducted;\n\n1.2.2.  The  number  of  child  marriages  prevented  and \n\nreported; and\n\n1.2.3.  Follow-up actions taken in each case.\n\n1.3.  The SOPs must clearly define the duties and responsibilities \nof CPMOs, and other stakeholders involved in community \nprotection efforts, such as police authorities, Sarpanchs, \n\n277  “NALSA”\n\n278 \n\n “SOP”\n\n279  “SCPS”\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1628 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nvillage  Pradhans,  school  teachers, AWWs,  and ASHA. \nSpecial emphasis shall be placed on these responsibilities \nduring critical periods and other wedding seasons and\n\n1.4.  The  National  Commission  for  Protection  of  Child  Rights \nis  directed  to  expedite  the  process  of  drafting  an  SOP \nto  establish  accountability  for  the  non-reporting  of  child \nmarriages, provide rehabilitation for minor survivors, and \ninitiate prosecution procedures.\n\n2.  Role of Panchayats and Local Leaders\n\n2.1.  All Panchayats, Sarpanchs, and local leaders must:\n\n2.1.1.  Complete  a  training  program  on  child  marriage \n\nprevention and reporting within three months; \n\n2.1.2.  Report  any  suspected  child  marriages  within  48 \n\nhours of awareness to relevant authorities; and\n\n2.1.3.  Actively  participate  in  community  awareness \nprograms  to  educate  families  on  the  legal \nconsequences  of  child  marriage  and  promote \nalternative practices to early marriage.\n\n3. \n\nIndividual Care Plans for At-Risk Girls\n\n3.1.  State authorities must develop and implement Individual \nCare  Plans  (ICP)  for  at-risk  girl  children,  ensuring \ncompliance with Section 10 of the JJ Act, which mandates \nindividualized care and rehabilitation for children in need \nof care and protection. It shall include:\n\n3.1.1.  Immediate access to educational resources tailored \n\nto the child’s needs;\n\n3.1.2.  Regular psychological support sessions, including \n\ncounselling and therapy, as necessary;\n\n3.1.3.  Establishment  of  peer  support  groups  to  help \nat-risk  girls  connect  with  one  another  and  share \nexperiences;\n\n3.1.4.  Monitoring  by  Child  Welfare  Officers/District \nChild  Protection  Unit  (DCPU)  should  occur \nevery month for the first year post-intervention to \nensure successful reintegration into education and \ncommunity life; and\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1629\n\n3.1.5.  Follow-up  assessments  should  be  conducted \nevery three months to evaluate the effectiveness \nof the ICP, adjusting support services as needed \nto address any emerging challenges faced by the \nchild.\n\nH.  Technology-Driven Initiatives for Reporting Child Marriage\n\n1.  Creation of a Centralized Reporting Portal\n\n1.1.  The  Ministry  of  Home Affairs,  in  collaboration  with  the \nMinistry of Women and Child Development and the NALSA, \nshall  establish  a  designated  portal  for  online  reporting \nof  child  marriages.  This  portal  will  include  features  for \nanonymous  reporting,  allowing  victims  and  concerned \ncitizens  to  easily  lodge  complaints  and  access  support \nservices; and\n\n1.2.  The portal will serve as a centralized platform for collecting \nand analyzing data on child marriage incidents, enabling \ntargeted  interventions.  It  will  enhance  accessibility, \ntransparency,  and  accountability  by  ensuring  that  all \nreports are addressed promptly by enforcement agencies \nand CMPOs.\n\n2.  Leveraging Technology for Support Services\n\n2.1.  Each  State  and  UT  shall  make  all  endeavours  to \ndisseminate information against child marriage across all \nprint,  digital  and  social  media  –  with  a  focus  on  regions \nwhere child marriages are likely to occur in high numbers. \nThey shall also consider the viability of data analytics to \nidentify  high-risk  areas  and  patterns  of  child  marriage, \nenabling swift interventions. \n\n3.  Technology-Driven Monitoring of Attendance\n\n3.1.  The  Ministry  for  Women  and  Child  Development,  in \ncoordination  with  the  relevant  State  Ministries,  shall \nconsider  the  viability  of  a  technology-driven  monitoring \nsystem to track daily attendance for school-going girls up \nto the 12th grade, ensuring compliance with the privacy \nstandards  outlined  in  the  Supreme  Court  judgment  in  \nKS Puttaswamy (9J) (supra).\n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1630 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nI. \n\nFunding and Resources\n\n1.  Dedicated Annual Budget Allocation\n\n1.1.  The  relevant  ministries  of  the  Union  Government  are \ndirected to recommend the allocation of a dedicated yearly \nbudget for each State specifically aimed at preventing child \nmarriage and supporting affected individuals. This budget \nshould encompass:\n\n1.1.1.  Community awareness programs; \n\n1.1.2.  Educational initiatives targeting at-risk populations; \n\n1.1.3.  Training programs for frontline workers, including \n\nCMPOs and local law enforcement; \n\n1.1.4.  Rehabilitation  services  for  victims,  including \n\ncounselling and vocational training; and\n\n1.1.5.  Provisions  for  regular  monitoring,  home  visits, \nand  follow-up  support  for  victims  to  ensure  their \nreintegration into society.\n\n2. \n\nJuvenile Justice Fund Institutionalization\n\n2.1.  The State Governments are directed to institutionalize the \nJuvenile Justice Fund established under Section 105 of \nthe JJ Act. This fund will provide financial assistance in \nthe form of scholarships and stipends specifically for girls \nat  imminent  risk  of  child  marriage  or  whose  marriages \nhave  been  annulled,  promoting  their  educational  and \nsocial empowerment.\n\n3.  Compensation for Girls Opting Out of Marriage\n\n3.1.  The  Ministry  of  Women  and  Child  Development \nis  requested  to  consider  the  viability  of  providing \ncompensation  to  girls  who  opt  out  of  marriage  upon \nreaching  the  age  of  majority  under  the  NALSA  Victim \nCompensation  Scheme  or  respective  State  Victim  \nCompensation  Schemes.  This  compensation  should  be \nequivalent  to  that  provided  to  rape  victims,  ensuring \nadequate  support  for  those  who  have  escaped  child \nmarriage. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1631\n\n4. \n\nIdentification and Support for At-Risk Children\n\n4.1.  Superintendents of Police and Collectors are directed to \nidentify instances of child marriage and monitor children \nat risk of dropping out of school due to socio-economic \nchallenges  or  threats  of  early  marriage.  This  initiative \nshould ensure:\n\n4.1.1.  Comprehensive  access  to  education  and  health \n\nservices for at-risk children; and\n\n4.1.2.  Provision  of  stipends  and  fellowships  to  support \ntheir continued education and mitigate the factors \ncontributing to child marriage.\n\nX.  Suggestions\n\n212. In  the  course  of  this  judgment,  we  have  traced  the  full  breadth  of \nthe law against child marriage. The PCMA is the central legislation \ngoverning  the  issue  on  the  subject.  In  light  of  the  Constitutional \nguarantees  accruing  to  children,  we  observe  certain  gaps  in  the \nPCMA. Absent a Constitutional challenge or a case being argued, \nwe resist from making declarations and restrict ourselves to making \nsuggestions  for  the  scrutiny  of  the  Union.  The  legal  question  on \nthese  issues,  however,  is  kept  open  if  it  were  to  come  before  a \nConstitutional court in an appropriate proceeding.\n\n213. The issue of the interface of personal laws with the prohibition of child \nmarriage under the PCMA has been a subject of some confusion. \nThe  Union  in  its  note  of  submission  filed  after  the  judgment  was \nreserved in the case has stated that this Court may direct that the \nPCMA prevails over personal law. The note states as follows:\n\n“9.  As  a  way  forward,  Ministry  of  Women  &  Child \nDevelopment  has  following  inputs  to  provide  for  kind \nconsideration of the Hon’ble Court –\n\nThere  are  conflicting  pronouncements  by  various \nHigh Courts about the precedence of the Prohibition \nof Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006 over the personal \nlaws.  Hence,  Hon’ble  Court  may  consider  issuing \ndirections  pronouncing  that  the  PCMA  will  prevail \nover the personal laws governing marriage.\n\ni. \n\n…”\n\n214. Details of the conflicting opinions were not furnished in the submissions \nby  either  party  to  these  proceedings.  The  PCMA  states  nothing  on \n\nSociety for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.\f1632 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe validity of the marriage as we have noted above. The Prohibition \nof Child Marriage (Amending) Bill 2021 was introduced in Parliament \non 21 December 2021. The Bill was referred for examination to the \nDepartment  Related  Standing  Committee  on  Education,  Women, \nChildren, Youth and Sports. The Bill sought to amend the PCMA to \nexpressly state the overriding effect of the statute over various personal \nlaws. The issue, therefore, is pending consideration before Parliament. \n\n215. Lastly, we note that while the PCMA seeks to prohibit child marriages, \nit  does  not  stipulate  on  betrothals.  Marriages  fixed  in  the  minority \nof a child also have the effect of violating their rights to free choice, \nautonomy, agency and childhood. It takes away from them their choice \nof partner and life paths before they mature and form the ability to \nassert  their  agency.  International  law  such  as  CEDAW  stipulates \nagainst betrothals of minors. Parliament may consider outlawing child \nbetrothals  which  may  be  used  to  evade  penalty  under  the  PCMA. \nWhile a betrothed child may be protected as a child in need of care \nand protection under the JJ Act, the practice also requires targeted \nremedies for its elimination. \n\nII.  Conclusion\n\n216. A copy of this Judgment will be transmitted to the Secretaries of all \nconcerned  Ministries,  the  Government  of  India  which  includes  the \nMinistry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Women and Child Development, \nMinistry  of  Panchayati  Raj,  Ministry  of  Education,  Ministry  of \nInformation  and  Broadcasting,  Ministry  of  Rural  Development, \nstatutory authorities, institutions, and organizations under the control \nof the respective ministries.\n\n217. The Ministry of Women and Child Development is directed to circulate \nthis judgment to the Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all the States \nand  Union  Territories,  as  well  as  NALSA,  and  NCPCR  for  strict \ncompliance  with  the  directions. This  shall  be  done  within  a  period \nof four weeks from the date of delivery of this judgment.\n\n218. The writ petition is disposed of.\n\n219. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.\n\nResult of the case: Writ petition disposed of.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f"}