In a stunning display of judicial gymnastics, the Supreme Court has managed to prioritize religious personal laws over the fundamental rights of children. The court’s refusal to extend the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) to all religions, regardless of personal laws, exposes the glaring inconsistencies in our interpretation of secularism.
Let’s call this what it is: a catastrophic failure to protect India’s most vulnerable while being partial to specific religions. The statistics tell a damning story – 26% of Muslim women were married before age 18, with Muslim communities showing 30% higher rates of adolescent pregnancies compared to Hindus. Yet, our highest court chooses to hide behind the veil of “confusion about the interface of personal laws with PCMA provisions.”
This isn’t confusion – it’s capitulation.
While Hindu families face legal consequences under PCMA for child marriages, Muslim personal law continues to legitimize marriages of girls as young as 15 or probably even younger, you never know. The court’s ruling essentially creates two Bharats: one where child marriage is a crime, and another where it’s a “religious right.” Is this the secularism our constitution envisioned?
The Supreme Court’s extensive 141-page judgment, filled with flowery language about children’s rights and the evils of child marriage, rings hollow when it refuses to take the one step that could make a real difference. The court eloquently speaks about patriarchy, sexual violence, and the destruction of childhood, yet balks at the moment of truth.
But here’s the real tragedy: we’re looking at the wrong institution for solutions. The government has the legislative power to end this debate once and for all. Why are we waiting for judicial permission to protect children? The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill 2021 sits gathering dust before a parliamentary standing committee while young girls continue to be married off under the sanctified shield of personal laws.
The Modi government, which showed courage in abolishing instant Triple Talaq, needs to find that same resolve here. This isn’t about religious sensitivity – it’s about basic human rights.
The court’s suggestion for a “Child Marriage Free Village” campaign seems almost farcical when it won’t support a uniform application of anti-child marriage laws. How do you create child-marriage-free villages when the law itself discriminates based on religion?
The numbers are staggering – 8,966 child marriages in Tamil Nadu, 8,348 in Karnataka, and 8,324 in West Bengal for starters. Behind each number is a child whose rights are being sacrificed at the altar of misguided secularism. Meanwhile, high courts continue to validate marriages of Muslim minors, citing Sharia law, effectively creating a parallel legal system where child abuse is legitimized under religious sanction.
The time for half-measures and judicial pontification is over. We need decisive legislative action that places children’s rights above all else. The government must step up and do what the Supreme Court wouldn’t – ensure that every child, regardless of religion, is protected from the scourge of child marriage.
Additionally, in what appears to be a perfect display of Western-imported wokeism, Chief Justice Chandrachud’s judgement on this reads more like a Gender Studies thesis from an American liberal arts college than a Supreme Court verdict. While the court can’t muster the courage to ban child marriage across all religions, it finds time to lecture about ‘compulsory heterosexuality,’ ‘heteropatriarchy,’ and ‘sexual minorities.’ The irony is striking – a court that waxes eloquent about sexual autonomy and gender fluidity somehow can’t protect a 15-year-old Muslim girl from being married off under Sharia law. Perhaps it’s easier to use progressive buzzwords than to take a firm stand against religious practices that harm children. The judgment’s preoccupation with modern gender theory while failing to address the basic issue of uniform child protection laws across religions shows how disconnected our judiciary has become from ground realities.
Is the Court trying to make it Hindu versus Muslim and not seeing what is right versus wrong? When we allow religious laws to override fundamental rights, we fail not just as a secular nation but as a civilized society.
Our message to the government should be clear: Stop hiding behind judicial reluctance. Legislate, enforce, and ensure that no religious law can override a child’s right to childhood. Anything less is a betrayal of our children and our constitution.
Courts also do not want to interfere in Muslim personal laws – allows registration of multiple marriages of Muslim men
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998 does not prevent the registration of multiple marriages by Muslim men, in accordance with their personal laws. The Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan set aside an order that had rejected the registration of a Muslim man’s third marriage.
The case arose when authorities rejected a marriage registration application citing that the Act’s definition of “marriage” contemplated only single marriages. The Court found this interpretation misconceived, noting that Section 7(1)(a) of the Act requires the Registrar to ensure marriages comply with the parties’ personal laws. As Muslim personal law permits up to four marriages, the Court held that refusing registration would effectively override established personal laws.
The Court directed authorities to consider the application afresh after submission of the required documents, including the Nikah Nama and previous marriage registration certificates. Special consideration was given regarding identity documents for the foreign spouse. The Court also granted protection from deportation to the wife until the matter was resolved.
Looking at these judgements, like RSS ideologue Ratan Sharda says, one wonders if the Supreme Court abandoned the principles of a secular constitution, allowing Shariah to override national laws. Is this a secular court or a Sharia court, one wonders.
It seems as if the Court is signaling that a child’s right to a safe, nurturing childhood holds less value than outdated religious customs. If the Court allows child marriage based on religious allowances, why stop there—why not remove the Hindu Code Bill and reverse all reforms for Hindus alone? The Court’s actual decision urges Parliament to create new laws condemning child marriage, acknowledging the harm it causes children. But why is it not enforcing existing constitutional laws to protect children?
