The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the state’s affirmative duty to protect minors from coercive family practices by mandating immediate intervention under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This judgment underscores that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to minors at risk of forced marriage, requiring proactive institutional safeguards.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Aansu Kumari and her minor nephew, seek protection from threats posed by their family members who allegedly intend to forcibly marry petitioner No.1, a major woman, and exert control over petitioner No.2, a 17-year-old minor. The petitioners allege that the family has fixed the marriage of petitioner No.1 against her will, prompting her to flee the family home. Both petitioners now reside with Geeta, the maternal aunt of petitioner No.2, at H.No.428, Ward No.26, Gali No.4, Shiv Colony, Hisar. They fear physical harm and coercion due to the perceived influence of the family members.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No.1 is a major adult woman
- Petitioner No.2 is a 17-year-old minor
- Both petitioners intend to marry each other once petitioner No.2 attains the legal marriageable age
- A formal representation (Annexure P-4) seeking police protection was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, but no effective action was taken
- The family members are identified as the private respondents and are alleged to have significant local clout
Procedural History
- 10.04.2026: Court adjourned matter to 13.04.2026 at request of State counsel for filing status report
- 13.04.2026: Case further adjourned at request of State counsel
- 16.04.2026: Status affidavit filed by Sunil Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar, confirming residence and status of petitioners
- 16.04.2026: Hearing concluded with disposal of petition
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought protective directions from the State to safeguard their life and liberty from threats by family members, including police intervention, monitoring, and prevention of forced marriage.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, under Article 226, can direct the deputation of a Child Welfare Police Officer and referral of a minor to the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, when the minor is at risk of coercion and forced marriage by family members.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel submitted that petitioner No.2, being a minor, falls squarely within the definition of a "child in need of care and protection" under Section 2(14)(vii) and (xii) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The petitioners argued that the State’s failure to act on their representation (Annexure P-4) constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They relied on the precedent set in P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana to argue that the Court has both the jurisdiction and duty to intervene proactively.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepted notice on behalf of the official respondents and did not oppose the relief sought. He acknowledged the vulnerability of the minor and the need for institutional intervention under the JJ Act, 2015.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the precedent in P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana (CRWP-2139-2022), wherein it had held that minors facing threats of forced marriage or family coercion qualify as children in need of care and protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court observed that the statutory framework under Sections 36 and 37 mandates a structured, multi-stakeholder inquiry by the Child Welfare Committee to determine the child’s best interests.
"The minor in all these cases happen to fall within the definition of child in need of care and protection as provided under section 2(14)(vii) (xii) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015."
The Court emphasized that the State’s obligation is not merely reactive but proactive. The failure to act on a representation of threat, especially when a minor is involved, amounts to a dereliction of statutory and constitutional duty. The Court further held that the Child Welfare Committee, not the police alone, is the constitutionally mandated body to assess the child’s safety, living arrangements, and future prospects.
The Court distinguished this case from ordinary criminal complaints, noting that the threat here arises from familial pressure and potential violation of the minor’s right to autonomy and development, which falls squarely within the protective ambit of the JJ Act.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Superintendent of Police, District Hisar, within 10 days. Upon their appearance, the Superintendent is directed to depute a Child Welfare Police Officer to produce petitioner No.2 before the Child Welfare Committee constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, within one week. The Committee shall conduct an inquiry under Section 36 and pass an order under Section 37, involving all stakeholders. The Superintendent is further directed to examine Annexure P-4 and take steps to ensure the petitioners’ safety. The Court clarified that this protection does not extend to shielding the petitioners from lawful criminal proceedings if they are found to have committed cognizable offences.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Child Welfare Committee Is Mandatory for Minors at Risk of Forced Marriage
- Practitioners must now treat any threat of forced marriage involving a minor as a statutory trigger for referral to the Child Welfare Committee under Section 36 of the JJ Act, 2015
- Police cannot substitute the Committee’s role; mere police protection is insufficient without formal adjudication by the Committee
- Representation to police under Section 154 CrPC is not a substitute for invoking the JJ Act’s protective mechanism
State’s Duty Is Proactive, Not Reactive
- The State must act on credible representations of threat even without a formal complaint
- Failure to depute a Child Welfare Police Officer or delay in referral constitutes a violation of the child’s rights under Article 21
- Courts may issue directions under Article 226 to enforce this duty, even in the absence of a formal petition by the child
Protection Does Not Immune From Criminal Liability
- The Court’s protection is limited to safeguarding liberty from familial coercion
- If petitioners are found to have committed offences such as elopement, abduction, or violation of marriage age laws, they remain liable to prosecution
- Legal counsel must advise clients that this order does not confer blanket immunity from criminal law
