Supreme Court Admits PIL on Uniform Marriage Age: A Step Towards Gender Equality?

Ritik Agrawal
15 hours ago
4 min read

Adeeba Rahman

Integral University, Lucknow

Editor- Malla Greeshma

Text reads: "Supreme Court admits PIL on uniform marriage age: A step towards gender equality?" Over image of the court building.

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India has taken a major step that could open the doors to gender-neutral personal laws by accepting a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that calls upon the uniformity of the minimum marriage age across the genders and the communities. The PIL, which is a writ in nature, is filed by an advocate, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, and it busts the constitutionality of the target of upholding various legal ages of marriage, with boys being permitted to get married at 21 years of age and girls at 18. Through this judicial acknowledgment, the question of uniform marriage age has redefined the directives of the national agenda, causing controversy on issues to do with gender justice, legislative transformation, and constitutional equality.

CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Currently, there is a law, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and other personal laws, i.e., the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, that have fixed the age of marriage as 21 years for men and 18 years for women. In the PIL, this unfair difference in law is condemned as discriminatory and against the Born Rights as basic rights of the Constitution, which are contained in Articles 14 (Equality Before Law), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Sex), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

The petitioner argues that such unequal treatment promotes gender stereotypes, justifies the patriarchal norms, and entails the negative socio-economic outcomes, predominantly affecting women in terms of early school leaving, being at high risk in terms of their maternal health condition, and dependence on the financial support provided by men.

JUDICIAL RESPONSE AND COURT PROCEEDINGS

The petition has been registered in a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who has also given notice to the Union Government, the Law Commission of India, and the National Commission of Women (NCW). These entities have been instructed to submit their replies and professional opinions within a period of six weeks. The bench further suggested that complex questions of constitutional interpretation and socio-legal policy were surrounding this issue and that it needs to be discussed at length.

Interestingly, this confession is different than the previous attitude of the court. A similar PIL was dismissed in 2023, when the court indicated that issues understood to be connected to marriage age were within the ambit of the legislature and social institutions should not enter into the powers of the parliament. A more active engagement of the judiciary with the issue, however, seems to be indicated by the current move to solicit feedback from state institutions on the matter.

ARGUMENTS FOR UNIFORMITY

According to those who support the PIL, keeping the marriage age low among women is a legal step backward since it is against the international human rights practice where India is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). They highlight that increasing the age of marriage of women would:

• Promote education and postpone early pregnancies.

• Enhance child mortality and maternal health outcomes

• To encourage economic activities and avoid dependency

• Constitutional morality: End discrimination in the legal formations.

Harmonization of age of marriage is also being viewed as a fundamental move to the actualization of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) like the one recently adopted in Uttarakhand, although with different age provisions remaining otherwise unaffected.

COUNTERARGUMENTS AND CONCERNS

The critics claim that judges should not provide a way to police by way of controlling personal law since this can result in unwarranted judicial activism. They warn such kinds of reforms, as much as they are desired, should not be produced by judicial fiat but emanate through democratic consultation and enactment of legislation. It is also suggested that a standard age would be disproportionately felt in communities where early marriage is culturally established, resulting in a backlash or a capricious implementation.

IMPLICATIONS AND THE ROAD AHEAD

The decision of the Supreme Court to admit the PIL presents a chance that the scope of gender equality can consequently be a re-expertise of personal laws. In case the court finally decides that the age gap is against the constitution, it can guide the state to pass a law of uniformity or even provide guidelines in that regard.

This ruling may also have a precedent that empowers the courts to question personal laws that fail to comply with the constitutional provisions of equality, dignity, and liberty. The Court will, however, be very careful in walking the thin line between constitutional values and socio-religious sensitivities.

The interventions of the Law Commission and NCW and also of the Union Government will be critical to decide whether the litigation will be further pursued or not. There should be another hearing later this year.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court of India has stepped in on the issue of harmonization of marriage at a certain age, which again is an urgent point, answers to the question are to be sought as India passes through the storms of the modernization of law and through the modification of societal structure. The PIL might be able to correct only by being satisfactory to foster consequential political debate or possibly even the essential nature of change, but even the realization of the judiciary in the exertion of gender justice besides even constitutional morality in the topic of the personal law is indisputable. As the next hearing was scheduled, the attention is now all on how the state reacts and whether the country will take a small step towards equal law and life.