Supreme Court Strengthens Measures Against Child Marriage: Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action vs. Union of India (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 18 October 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 790

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J

Can a social evil deeply rooted in tradition be eradicated through legal means alone? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a significant case concerning child marriage. The court addressed a petition seeking stronger enforcement of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 (PCMA) and highlighted the alarming prevalence of child marriages despite existing laws. The judgment emphasizes the need for a multi-faceted approach combining legal measures with social awareness and community engagement. The bench comprised Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

The Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action, an NGO actively working against child marriage, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner’s primary concern was the continued high rate of child marriages in India despite the existence of the PCMA. The NGO argued that authorities were failing to prevent these marriages and sought stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, the appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs), and comprehensive support systems for child brides. The petition also requested effective guidelines to ensure the protection and welfare of vulnerable minors.

Timeline

Arguments

Petitioner’s Submissions:

• The petitioner argued that high rates of child marriage persist, as evidenced by adolescent pregnancies in multiple states, despite the PCMA.
• CMPOs are often burdened with multiple responsibilities, limiting their capacity to focus on child marriage prevention. Many states assign these duties to officers holding other substantial roles, such as Child Development Project Officers (CDPOs) or District Welfare Officers.
• Responses to Right to Information (RTI) requests revealed significant disparities in the appointment and functionality of CMPOs across states and UTs, with only a few having exclusively appointed CMPOs.
• There is a discrepancy between data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and information obtained from state departments via RTIs.
• Analysis of data reveals a low number of reported child marriage cases compared to NFHS data, and an exceptionally low conviction rate.

Union of India’s Submissions:

• Child marriages persist due to societal perceptions and economic pressures, often viewing girls as burdens.
• The PCMA criminalizes the facilitation and solemnization of child marriage, aiming to deter this harmful practice.
• The Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP) program addresses gender-based issues by promoting girls’ education and empowerment.
• Census data from 2001 and 2011 indicates a decrease in child marriage rates.
• Data from NFHS-4 shows a reduction in teenage pregnancies. The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has identified high-risk districts covered under the BBBP scheme.
• Programs like the Mahila Shakti Kendra enhance awareness and equip women with knowledge on gender equality.
• States and Union Territories have taken various measures to eliminate child marriages.

The petitioner’s arguments highlighted the implementation gaps and the need for dedicated officers and resources, while the Union of India emphasized the existing legal framework and various initiatives aimed at curbing child marriage.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the core concerns raised in the petition, including:

1. The effectiveness of the existing legal framework, particularly the PCMA, in preventing child marriages.
2. The role and functionality of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs) in the implementation of the PCMA.
3. The need for stronger enforcement mechanisms and accountability for officials who fail to prevent child marriages.
4. The adequacy of current awareness programs and support systems for child brides.
5. The need for a multi-faceted approach combining legal measures with social awareness and community engagement.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on various authorities to support its reasoning and conclusions. These authorities are categorized by the legal points they address:

Judgment

Key Takeaways

• Exclusive CMPOs: State Governments and UTs must appoint officers solely responsible for discharging the functions of CMPO at the district level.
• District-Level Responsibility: Collectors and Superintendents of Police in each district are now also responsible for actively preventing child marriages.
• Specialized Police Unit: The Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) will be deployed to manage cases of child marriage.
• Suo Moto Action: Magistrates are empowered to take suo moto action and issue preventive injunctions.
• Fast-Track Courts: The feasibility of establishing special fast-track courts for child marriage cases will be assessed.
• Accountability: Strict action will be taken against public servants who neglect their duty in child marriage cases.
• Community Involvement: The “Child Marriage Free Village” initiative will encourage Panchayats and community leaders to actively prevent child marriages.
• Awareness Campaigns: Mandatory awareness campaigns will be conducted in schools, religious institutions, and Panchayats.
• Comprehensive Sexuality Education: All States and UTs are directed to integrate comprehensive sexuality education into school curricula.
• Educational Incentives: Educational incentive programs, scholarships, and stipends will be provided to girls at risk of child marriage.
• Social Welfare Programs: Social welfare programs will be implemented to assist families at risk of engaging in child marriage.
• Standard Operating Procedures: NALSA is directed to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for legal support and rehabilitation.
• Technology-Driven Initiatives: A centralized reporting portal will be established, and technology will be leveraged for support services and monitoring attendance.
• Dedicated Budget: A dedicated yearly budget will be allocated for each State specifically aimed at preventing child marriage.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued several directions to ensure the effective implementation of the PCMA and prevent child marriages. These directions include:

• Appointment of exclusive CMPOs in each district.
• Quarterly performance reviews of CMPOs and law enforcement agencies.
• Mandatory training refreshers for CMPOs every six months.
• Collectors and Superintendents of Police to be responsible for actively preventing child marriages.
• Establishment of specialized police units to handle child marriage cases.
• Constitution of a State Special Child Marriage Prohibition Unit.
• Magistrates to take suo moto action and issue preventive injunctions.
• Assessment of the feasibility of establishing fast-track courts.
• Strict disciplinary action against negligent public servants.
• Development of Annual Action Plans and community-centric capacity building.
• Adoption of the “Child Marriage Free Village” initiative.
• Awareness campaigns led by CMPOs in schools, religious institutions, and Panchayats.
• Integration of comprehensive sexuality education into school curricula.
• Implementation of mentorship and leadership programs for girls.
• Creation of a centralized online reporting portal.
• Allocation of a dedicated yearly budget for each State to prevent child marriage.
• Institutionalization of the Juvenile Justice Fund.
• Consideration of providing compensation to girls opting out of marriage.
• Identification and support for at-risk children.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the existing legal framework against child marriage and provides a roadmap for its effective implementation. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State has a positive obligation to protect children from child marriage and must take proactive steps to prevent and prohibit this practice. The court has not made any new law but has strengthened the position of the existing law by directing the authorities to take active steps to ensure that the law is implemented.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action vs. Union of India is a landmark decision that strengthens the legal framework against child marriage in India. By emphasizing the need for dedicated officers, community involvement, and comprehensive support systems, the court has paved the way for a more effective approach to preventing this harmful practice. The judgment underscores the importance of protecting children’s rights and ensuring their well-being, and it sets a precedent for future cases related to child marriage. The court’s emphasis on a multi-faceted approach, combining legal measures with social awareness and community engagement, is crucial for achieving a lasting impact.