Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judgement Date: 18 October 2024
Judges: Hon’ble Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra
Advocates: Ms Mugdha (Counsel for Petitioner), Ms Aishwarya Bhati (Additional Solicitor General for Union of India)
Acts and Sections Involved: Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (Sections 16, 28); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Cited Judgments: Rukhmabai’s case, Phulmoni Dasi’s case
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr v. Union of India & Ors delivered on 18th October 2024 is a pivotal ruling in the ongoing battle against child marriage in India. The judgment, presided over by a bench comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hon'ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra, addresses significant issues concerning the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages, despite legislative efforts. The petitioners, an NGO, approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, raising concerns over the inefficacy of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA), and the continued prevalence of child marriage in India.
Background and Legal Context
Child marriage is a deep-rooted social problem in India. Despite various legislative measures, including the enactment of the PCMA in 2006, the practice continues unabated, particularly in rural and impoverished communities. According to the National Family Health Survey-5 (2019-2021), approximately 23.3% of girls under the age of 18 were still being married, a slight decrease from earlier figures but nonetheless a stark reminder of the challenge at hand.
The petitioners argued that the State had failed in its duty to enforce the provisions of the PCMA effectively. They sought stronger enforcement mechanisms, the appointment of dedicated Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs), and comprehensive support systems for child brides, including education, healthcare, and compensation.
Key Issues and Observations by the Court
The Court was tasked with addressing the failure of existing enforcement mechanisms under the PCMA and suggesting ways to improve the implementation of child marriage laws. One of the key issues raised by the petitioners was the dual responsibility given to CMPOs, who are often tasked with other duties that limit their ability to focus on preventing child marriages.
Hon'ble Chief Justice Chandrachud observed:
"The designation of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers as multi-tasking officials limits their capacity to focus on their statutory duties under the PCMA, undermining the State's ability to prevent child marriages effectively."
The petitioners highlighted the discrepancies between the National Crime Records Bureau data and responses to Right to Information (RTI) requests from various States. The data revealed that child marriage incidents were significantly underreported, and the conviction rates were alarmingly low.
A Cycle of Socio-Economic Oppression
One of the most striking parts of the judgment was the Court’s analysis of the socio-economic determinants of child marriage. The Court recognised that child marriage is not only a social evil but also a vicious cycle perpetuated by poverty, gender inequality, and lack of education.
Hon'ble Justice Narasimha, reflecting on the socio-cultural roots of the issue, stated:
"Culturally embedded concepts of virginity and chastity are used to control the sexuality of women by men and families, forcing young girls into marriages to maintain family honour and mitigate economic burdens."
This observation highlights the intersection of gender inequality and economic pressures, which often compel families to marry off their daughters early. The judgment further noted that child marriage disproportionately affects girls, with lifelong consequences on their health, education, and overall development.
Constitutional Guarantees and International Obligations
The judgment reiterated the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protect individuals from discrimination and guarantee the right to life and personal liberty. The Court also underscored India’s international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Hon'ble Justice Misra emphasised:
"Child marriage is a violation of fundamental rights, and the State’s failure to enforce the law undermines India’s international commitments to protect children and eliminate gender-based violence."
The Court acknowledged the progress made in reducing child marriage but noted that the current rate of decline was insufficient to meet the Sustainable Development Goal 5.3, which aims to eliminate child marriage by 2030.
Recommendations and the Way Forward
In its ruling, the Court issued several directives aimed at strengthening the enforcement of the PCMA and ensuring greater protection for vulnerable minors. Among the key recommendations were:
Appointment of Dedicated Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs): The Court directed all States and Union Territories to appoint full-time CMPOs, who would be solely responsible for preventing child marriages and enforcing the provisions of the PCMA.
Increased Accountability: The Court recommended that States introduce measures to hold officials accountable for failing to prevent child marriages, particularly in high-incidence areas.
Community Involvement and Awareness Campaigns: The Court stressed the need for community-based approaches, including collaboration with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and local leaders, to raise awareness and prevent child marriages.
Use of Technology: The judgment called for the use of technology-driven initiatives, such as online platforms for reporting child marriages and real-time data collection, to improve monitoring and enforcement.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr v. Union of India & Ors is a landmark decision in the fight against child marriage in India. By addressing the socio-economic and cultural determinants of child marriage and issuing directives to improve enforcement, the Court has taken a crucial step towards protecting the rights and dignity of children. The judgment not only reaffirms India’s constitutional and international obligations but also sets a precedent for future cases involving the protection of minors from harmful practices.
For legal professionals, this judgment serves as a reminder of the critical role that the judiciary plays in upholding the rights of the most vulnerable members of society, particularly in the face of deeply entrenched social norms and economic challenges.
Kommentare