The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), criticizing its challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision that allowed a 16-year-old Muslim girl to marry. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan stated that the NCPCR had no right to file the petition in this case. The Supreme Court had rejected the Special Leave Petition filed by the NCPCR, which contested the 2022 ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had stated that a 16-year-old Muslim girl could legally marry a Muslim man, providing protection to the couple from threats. The court rebuked the NCPCR, questioning how it could challenge the High Court’s order when it had secured the safety of two minor children. The court found the NCPCR’s petition surprising. In a previous hearing, the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, mentioned that different High Courts were delivering conflicting judgments. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) responded that the matter would be resolved swiftly. The court had previously stated that in Islam, marriage is considered valid after sexual maturity, and thus, the POCSO Act and charges of abduction do not apply to the petitioner. The NCPCR had challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, arguing that the POCSO Act sets the age for physical relations at 18 years. The High Court’s ruling contradicted this, as it did not permit the marriage of a 16-year-old girl. The High Court, in its order, stated it did not want to address the girl’s age, as it was the trial court’s purview. The court declined to provide any relief to the petitioner, dismissing the anticipatory bail plea. The minor had previously recorded statements before a magistrate in 2024, stating she did not want to stay with her parents. Considering her age, she was sent to a children’s home. The petitioner had informed the High Court that, as per an ossification test conducted at a private diagnostic center in January of that year, the girl was an adult. The Haryana government presented the minor’s school records, which indicated her birth in March 2008, making her 15 years and 9 months old. The petitioner claimed to have married the victim with her consent.
