National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) v. Gulaam Deen & Ors., 2025

A Muslim man filed a habeas corpus petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking the release and protection of his 16-year-old girlfriend, allegedly detained by her family.

The couple expressed their wish to marry.

The High Court, applying Muslim Personal Law, granted them protection, observing that a Muslim girl attaining puberty (presumed at 15) is eligible for marriage.

NCPCR, a statutory child rights body, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, arguing that this recognition of marriage violated secular laws like POCSO and PCMA.

The bench firmly held that NCPCR was a stranger to the original proceedings before the High Court. The High Court had passed its order under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers it to protect the life and liberty of individuals.

The couple had not challenged any child marriage law or criminal proceeding; they merely sought protection from threats due to their relationship.

Justice Nagarathna questioned the logic behind a child rights protection body opposing a High Court order protecting the lives of two individuals.

The Court pointed out the irony and contradiction in NCPCR's action: “How can the NCPCR, which is meant to protect children, challenge an order that grants them protection?”

The main contention raised by NCPCR was whether Muslim Personal Law could permit a girl under 18 to marry, despite secular laws like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) and POCSO. However, the Court refused to entertain this question, stating that this particular case was not the appropriate context to decide it.

The Court emphasized that the case at hand was not about validating the marriage but about granting personal safety to the petitioners. The Court took a compassionate and practical view of young relationships, particularly in Indian society where parents often use criminal laws like POCSO against consensual relationships.

Justice Nagarathna remarked: “No question of law arises here. You can challenge it in an appropriate case.” “There is the POCSO Act, which takes care of penal cases, but there are romantic cases also where teenagers on the verge of majority run away.” “We should not treat romantic cases the same as criminal cases. The trauma for a young girl whose partner is jailed due to parental opposition is real and needs to be considered.”

The bench thus recognized the complex socio-cultural dynamics where legal rigidity could lead to injustice in genuine consensual relationships.

The High Court had based its decision on Muslim Personal Law, particularly Article 195 of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law, which states:

• A Muslim girl who has attained puberty is competent to marry.

• Puberty is presumed at 15 years, unless proved otherwise.

While NCPCR objected to this being in conflict with secular laws (like PCMA and POCSO), the Supreme Court did not go into this conflict, again noting that this wasn’t the right case to examine that broader constitutional question.

The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between penal law enforcement and protection of individual liberty in romantic, near-majority relationships.

Justice Nagarathna highlighted the emotional trauma faced by young girls in genuine romantic relationships, especially when POCSO is misused by families to criminalize consensual love or elopement.

The bench chose to prioritize individual autonomy and personal liberty, especially when protected under personal law, over a generalized interpretation of child protection statutes.

The Muslim Personal Law was upheld as applicable in determining the marriageable age for Muslim girls based on puberty, not solely statutory age limits.

The judgment reflects judicial sensitivity to the realities of social customs, personal law, and misuse of child protection laws in consensual teenage relationships.