"Romantic Cases": SC rejects NCPCR challenge against Muslim girl’s marriage at puberty

The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan heard the matter. Notably, in February 2023, the Court had issued notice in the appeal.

 Justice Nagarathna questioned the Commission’s role: “Why has NCPCR come? You are a stranger to this litigation.”

The Bench noted that the original writ before the High Court was filed by private individuals under Article 226 seeking protection of life and liberty, not by NCPCR. “We fail to see how NCPCR has locus. NCPCR has no locus to challenge such an order… No question of law arises. The HC, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, passed the order. NCPCR cannot challenge it,” Justice Nagarathna observed.

The Court further remarked that it was strange for an institution meant to protect children to oppose an order safeguarding minors. “How can NCPCR say ‘don’t protect two children’? If the HC has ordered protection for minors, how can NCPCR oppose it?”

Senior Counsel for NCPCR sought to argue that larger questions of law were involved, but the Bench disagreed. “Permission to file SLP is not granted, locus standi goes. No question of law arises. Challenge it in an appropriate case,” Justice Nagarathna said, formally dismissing the appeal.

In a connected case, the Court was dealing with the custody of a minor girl who had married a man above 18 years. The Bench took a nuanced view, distinguishing between cases of sexual exploitation and what it termed “romantic cases.” Justice Nagarathna noted:

“Take up better issues. A 17-year-old girl and a 22-year-old boy running away and marrying, these romantic cases are something we have to exclude. Today co-education is everywhere, feelings develop. Can you say it is criminal to love? We have to keep a distinction between a criminal act like rape under Section 376 and these situations. Look at the trauma of the girl if she is separated from the boy she loves and he is jailed at her parents’ instance.”

The Bench also referred to deliberations by the Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) of the Madras High Court, which suggested that in genuine cases of young couples in consensual relationships, police action should not immediately criminalize the boy.

The Court, however, declined a plea by Bachpan Bachao Andolan to frame uniform guidelines across High Courts, stating: “We can’t say that.”

Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao pointed out that the larger question of freedom of religion and personal laws in marriage is already pending before a nine-judge bench.

Concluding the hearing, Justice Nagarathna said: “Leave these couples alone.” The matter will now be taken up next Tuesday, when the counsel for NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan is expected to place on record relevant orders of the Court, possibly paving the way for its disposal.

It is to be noted that the Union Cabinet in December 2021, had cleared a proposal to bring uniformity in the marriageable age of men and women and proposed to raise the legal age of marriage of women from 18 to 21 years. Thereafter, the Union Minister for Women and Child Development Smriti Irani had introduced in the Lok Sabha the "Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021", which seeks to increase the age of marriage for women to 21 years across all religions. The Bill proposes to override any other law, custom, or practice. The bill was referred to the Standing committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports for examination. The committee has received multiple extensions to submit its report.

Case Title: NCPCR v. Gulab Deen & Anr. and connected matters

Hearing Date: August 19, 2025

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan