Moa Jamir
The recent Supreme Court judgment on child marriage, delivered on October 18, is both a critical step towards protecting children and a sobering reminder of the challenges that persist in eradicating the practice. The PCMA 2006 defines a “child” as a male under 21 years of age or a female under 18, with child marriage being a union involving at least one underage party.
The apex court emphatically asserted that child marriage is a ‘social evil’ and a criminal offence while issuing several guidelines outlined as a 'Way Forward' aimed at strengthening the implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) 2006.These guidelines, intended for various stakeholders at both the district and union levels, underscore the importance of a coordinated and unified approach to combat the practice, while also recognising the complex socio-economic factors at play.
Notably, the Court observed that child marriage is an oxymoron, as a child by definition lacks the capacity to make legal decisions, whereas marriage is a legal institution that governs personal and social responsibilities, including the legitimacy of sexual activity. Thus, the normalisation of the term is a ‘great tragedy,’ it added.
A significant aspect of the Court’s ruling, delivered by the Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was apparent scepticism over the "zero" cases of child marriage reported in some states and union territories, including Nagaland. Officially, since 2010, when the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) first started publishing data of crimes under the PCMA Act, no cases have been registered in Nagaland.
The lack of cases, however, does not necessarily imply its absence in Nagaland. As per the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-5, covering the period from 2019-21, 5.6% of women aged 20-24 in Nagaland were married before turning 18, while 5% of males aged 25-29 were married before the legal age of 21. While these rates are far lower than the national average and have decreased significantly over time, they indicate a continued occurrence. Furthermore, 3.8% of females aged 15-19 were either mothers or pregnant during the survey period.
Based on the PCMA and NFHS data, two primary inferences can be drawn: First, a lack of awareness about marriage laws as well societal norms concerning early unions, potentially resulting in underreporting, as the Court pointed out, or complete lack of reporting. Additionally, the prevalence of adolescent and teenage pregnancy, with the practice of starting families without formal marriage.It is also not uncommon for families to be started without formalising the union through marriage in Nagaland.
Hence, the Supreme Court's detailed guidelines, covering the importance of a prevention-protection-prosecution approach, with a focus on building community awareness, strengthening law enforcement, and ensuring accountability, can provide a roadmap for addressing the gaps, legal or otherwise. For states like Nagaland, this means moving beyond the passive assumption and equating the lack of data with the absence of the issue.
Above all, building awareness about a child’s right to reach their full potential and make their own choices for the future is essential—not just for stakeholders in society, but for the children themselves. As the Court rightly noted, child marriage often denies children the opportunity for intellectual, social, and psychological growth, while also posing significant life-threatening risks.
The directives for schools, religious institutions, and Panchayats to serve as centres for awareness generation, thus, are particularly relevant. As the judgment notes, penalising offenders should be a last resort; the focus must be on prevention and protection through awareness and support systems, given the contributing socio-economic factors. Stakeholders in Nagaland, especially those at the helm of affairs, must read judgement and implement the guidelines seriously.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com