“Supreme Court Defers Decision on PCMA and Personal Laws.”
October 18, 2024 2025-03-01 23:44“Supreme Court Defers Decision on PCMA and Personal Laws.”
“Supreme Court Defers Decision on PCMA and Personal Laws.”
By Niyati Dhiman
The Supreme Court, in its judgment addressing child marriage prevention, refrained from deciding whether the Prevention of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006, overrides personal laws that permit such marriages. The judgment was delivered in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action, which sought enhanced measures to prevent child marriages.
The issue of conflict between personal laws and the PCMA has been a source of confusion. During the proceedings, the Union Government submitted a written statement suggesting that the Court could direct the PCMA to take precedence over personal laws. However, since this issue was not argued during the hearings, the Court opted to leave the matter unresolved.
The Court noted that Parliament is already addressing this issue through the Prohibition of Child Marriage Amendment Bill, 2021, introduced on December 21, 2021. The bill seeks to explicitly state that the PCMA overrides personal laws and has been referred to the Department-related Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth, and Sports for examination. Given the pending bill, the Court decided not to adjudicate on the matter at this time.
While highlighting gaps in the PCMA, such as its silence on the validity of child marriages, the judgment left such legal questions open for future constitutional challenges. The Court also noted the recent developments in related cases, such as the Kerala High Court’s decision that the PCMA supersedes the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.
The judgment emphasized the need for a community-driven approach to spread awareness and prevent child marriages, rather than solely focusing on criminal prosecutions. The Court highlighted the socio-cultural complexities of child marriages and stressed that enforcement efforts should be mindful of their impact on families and communities.
Advocate Mugdha represented the petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Union government. The judgment reflects the Court’s recognition of the need for legislative action and its cautious approach in balancing legal reform with cultural and community considerations.
Case Title: Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., Supreme Court
Citation: 2024 INSC 790
