Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A CJI Justice DYChandrachud led bench of the Supreme Court today allowed a plea seeking transfer of petitions pending before the Rajasthan High Court & Delhi High Court which have sought uniform age of marriage for both men & women. 

Originally, the plea had sought transfer of petitions pending before the Rajasthan High Court & Delhi High Court. But, when the case came up for hearing today, Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi, appearing for the State of Rajasthan informed the Court that the plea pending before the High Court had been dismissed so the transfer plea would not survive.

Accordingly, the bench also comprising Justice Narasimha ordered thus,

"The plea instituted before the Rajasthan High Court has already been dismissed due to want of prosecution. So, we shall allow the transfer of the plea pending before Delhi High Court."

Court also allowed an application for intervention filed by a medical practitioner.

In February 2021, a bench of then Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramanian had issued notice to the Centre in the plea filed on behalf of Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay.

In his plea, Upadhyay stated that while men are permitted to marry at the age of 21 years, women are permitted to marry at 18. This, he stated is based on certain stereotypes and completely nullifies what has been envisaged in the International Human Rights obligations. He contended that discriminatory provisions should be read down to equalise minimum age of marriage for both men and women at 21 years in light of the global trends that point in this direction.

The plea also stated that India ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ("CEDAW") in 1993 in and in terms of the same and India is obligated to "take all appropriate measures… [t]o modify social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women."

Furthermore, the petition highlighted the provisions under various legislations which stipulate the age of marriage as being discriminatory as following:

Section 60(1) of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872;
Section 3(1)(c) of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936;
Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954;
Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;
Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

"This difference in stipulated age of marriage for men and women is based on on patriarchal stereotypes, has no scientific backing, perpetrates de jure and de facto inequality against women, and goes completely against the global trends," the petitioner stated.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India