New Delhi: Prosecuting those involved in child marriages will not solve the problem that has social dimensions, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, while reserving the verdict on a PIL over the alleged rise in child marriages in the country.
Unimpressed by the Centre's claims that state-specific programs such as awareness campaigns and training are being carried out, the top court said, "These programs and conferences do not really change things on the ground."
The NGO 'Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action', in 2017, had filed the PIL before the apex court alleging that the Child Marriage Prohibition Act was not being implemented in "letter and spirit".
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard submissions from the petitioner NGO's lawyer and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, before reserving the verdict.
"It is not just about prosecution. Prosecuting people involved in child marriages will not solve the problem as it has social dimensions," the court said and asked lawyers for both sides to give suggestions on the way forward to address the matter. .
"We are not here to criticize anyone. This is a social issue," the CJI said and asked the judicial officer to inform what the government was doing in this regard.
At the outset, the Additional Solicitor General briefed the court about the current situation and said that states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra and Assam have witnessed more cases of child marriage.
He said northeastern states, excluding Assam, hardly have such incidents.
Five states and UTs, including Dadra Nagar Haveli, Mizoram and Nagaland, have not reported any case of child marriage, he added.
The bailiff referred to the data and said there was a marked improvement in the last three years.
He said that out of 34 states and UTs, 29 have provided data on child marriages.
There was no data available on convictions in child marriage cases, he said, adding: "That data is not here. We can get it. But see, there are many improvements. There is a 50 percent reduction in child marriage cases compared to 2005-06."
"We have to work for a healthy education for girls and women. This way half of the population will be able to contribute as national builders and get out of this social evil," said the official.
The court asked why officials like district magistrates and SDMs are given the additional charge of acting as child marriage prohibition officers.
The law officer stated that these officers, being in a position of power in the districts, are more equipped and trained to address the issue of child marriages.
Earlier, the top court had directed the Ministry of Women and Child Development to submit a status report detailing the measures taken to implement the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
"The Union of India should also collaborate with the state governments to apprise the court on compliance by the states with the provision of Section 16(3) for appointment of officer entrusted with the prohibition of child marriage. The statement jury must also clarify whether the official was so designated or assigned multiple other functions," the court had said.
Unimpressed by the Centre's claims that state-specific programs such as awareness campaigns and training are being carried out, the top court said, "These programs and conferences do not really change things on the ground."
The NGO 'Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action', in 2017, had filed the PIL before the apex court alleging that the Child Marriage Prohibition Act was not being implemented in "letter and spirit".
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard submissions from the petitioner NGO's lawyer and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, before reserving the verdict.
"It is not just about prosecution. Prosecuting people involved in child marriages will not solve the problem as it has social dimensions," the court said and asked lawyers for both sides to give suggestions on the way forward to address the matter. .
"We are not here to criticize anyone. This is a social issue," the CJI said and asked the judicial officer to inform what the government was doing in this regard.
At the outset, the Additional Solicitor General briefed the court about the current situation and said that states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra and Assam have witnessed more cases of child marriage.
He said northeastern states, excluding Assam, hardly have such incidents.
Five states and UTs, including Dadra Nagar Haveli, Mizoram and Nagaland, have not reported any case of child marriage, he added.
The bailiff referred to the data and said there was a marked improvement in the last three years.
He said that out of 34 states and UTs, 29 have provided data on child marriages.
There was no data available on convictions in child marriage cases, he said, adding: "That data is not here. We can get it. But see, there are many improvements. There is a 50 percent reduction in child marriage cases compared to 2005-06."
"We have to work for a healthy education for girls and women. This way half of the population will be able to contribute as national builders and get out of this social evil," said the official.
The court asked why officials like district magistrates and SDMs are given the additional charge of acting as child marriage prohibition officers.
The law officer stated that these officers, being in a position of power in the districts, are more equipped and trained to address the issue of child marriages.
Earlier, the top court had directed the Ministry of Women and Child Development to submit a status report detailing the measures taken to implement the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
"The Union of India should also collaborate with the state governments to apprise the court on compliance by the states with the provision of Section 16(3) for appointment of officer entrusted with the prohibition of child marriage. The statement jury must also clarify whether the official was so designated or assigned multiple other functions," the court had said.
