The Allahabad High Court has determined that personal laws, including Muslim personal law, cannot contravene the prohibitions outlined in the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA), or override the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). This judgment arose in the context of a case involving a 16-year-old Muslim girl in Uttar Pradesh, where a first information report (FIR) had been filed against 19 individuals alleged to have obstructed law enforcement officers trying to prevent the girl’s marriage.

The ruling, delivered on July 1, 2026, in the case of Rubi Vs State of UP, indicated that the Shariat law—which permits marriage at puberty—contradicts the legal restrictions imposed by the PCMA and the POCSO Act. The court emphasised that the allowance for marriage after puberty as defined by Shariat does not align with the statutory prohibitions aimed at protecting minors from early marriage and exploitation.

In reaching its decision, the Bench, comprising Justices JJ Munir and Achal Sachdev, acknowledged that there exists a divergence of opinions across various High Courts on this subject. However, they concurred with a 2024 ruling by the Kerala High Court, which asserted that the ban on child marriage is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliations.

Details of the Case and Context

The case originated from a complaint filed at Kakor police station in Bulandshahr on February 15, 2026. Law enforcement officials, accompanied by representatives from Child Line, acted on information regarding the planned marriage of a minor. Their efforts to intervene faced opposition from individuals who allegedly abused and threatened them during the process. It is reported that the group forcibly removed the girl from the custody of Child Line personnel.

The petitioners contended that, according to Muslim personal law, a girl who has reached puberty—a stage generally accepted as occurring around the age of 15—is considered fit to marry. They argued that the PCMA should not supersede these personal laws. However, the Court found this argument unpersuasive, asserting that the legal age of marriage stipulated in the PCMA is binding for every citizen regardless of their religious background.

The Bench further articulated concerns that allowing marriages involving individuals younger than 18 could be tantamount to violating the POCSO Act, given that marriages often involve sexual relations. They clarified that both the PCMA and POCSO Act are designed to safeguard public health and reflect national policy, underscoring the need for adherence to these statutes.

Implications of the Ruling

The Court maintained that, given the comprehensive nature of the PCMA, it will take precedence over previous exceptions stipulated by personal laws regarding the legal marriage age. They noted that while a marriage conducted in violation of the PCMA may be classified as voidable, the actions taken by parties involved in such marriages are subject to legal penalties.

In conclusion, the Court determined that the actions of the police and Child Line officials were justified under the law, affirming their commitment to preventing potential violations of both the PCMA and the POCSO Act. The Bench held that the allegations against the petitioners suggested a prima facie obstruction of the duties performed by public officials, thus indicting the necessity for further investigation rather than immediate dismissal of the FIR.

Legal representation for the petitioners was provided by Advocate Pooja, while the State was represented by Additional Government Advocates Ghanshyam Kumar and Shashi Shekhar Tiwari.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share