The Rajasthan State Assembly in 2021 had passed the bill to amend a 2009 Act [Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act] which provides for mandatory registration of marriages, including child marriages.
While dismissing the plea, Justices Indira Banerjee and MM Sundresh of the Supreme Court orally observed that the provision was for past actions of marriages keeping in the mind the plight of the parties. This prompted the bench to dismiss the matter.
"You must understand the difficulties of the women... understand ground realities."
During the hearing, the advocate appearing for the petitioners informed the Court that the Rajasthan government was proposing to amend a section to the Bill, in order to make child marriages legal.
"They have come up with a section which permits registration of child marriages."
"This is not yet an Act. I don't know how you can challenge (a bill)", the court immediately remarked. The bill is yet to receive the Governor's assent.
In essence, both, the Act of 2009 and the proposed amendment to the Act, make the registration of child marriage mandatory with the only difference being that in the 2009 Act, the age mentioned was 21 years for both boys and girls, whereas, the amendment bill seeks to differentiate between the age of bride and bridegroom.
Till date, the procedure laid down was that if the parties (bride or groom) had not completed the age of 21, then their parents or guardians had to submit the memorandum.
However, now if the amendment bill becomes an Act, then the law would be that if the bride has not completed 18 years of age and/or the groom has not completed 21 years of age, then their parents or their guardians have the duty to submit the memorandum.
The petition moved 'Youth Bar Association of India' challenged this, contending,
"The Statement of Objects and Reasons for amending section 8 as is apparent from the said Bill, is that "if parties to the marriage have not completed the age of marriage, the parents or guardians shall be responsible to submit the memorandum within a prescribed period…", which means that the Rajasthan Government intends to permit child marriage by giving it a back door entry, which is otherwise illegal and impermissible under law.", the petition contended.
It was further submitted that although the petitioner is not against the registration of marriages per se, however permitting the registration of 'child marriages/ would lead to a 'dangerous situation' and may further facilitate instances of child abuse.
"Our country is a 'welfare state' and the Governments owes an obligation to work for the welfare of the nation. Children must be the paramount consideration, who happens to be the resources of a developing nation", it was further argued.
Furthermore, referring to Section 8 of the Bill, the petition averred that the Bill 'shields the solemnization of the marriages of children, having not completed the marriageable age.' It was further asserted that such a Bill would defeat the purpose of "The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006" which had been enacted to curb such incidents of child marriage.
Case Title: Youth Bar Association v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1071/2021 PIL-W
Counsels for Petitioner: AoR, Ms Manju Jaitley, Advocates, Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Ms. Yasha Sharma, Mr. Varun Mishra, Mr. Kuldeep Rai, Mr. Bhavya Pratap Singh
