A minor’s right to life and liberty under Article 21 includes protection from forced marriage, even before attaining majority. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced this principle by directing state authorities to invoke the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to safeguard a 16-year-old petitioner from coercive familial pressure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a 16-year-old girl born on 07.08.2009, seeks protection from private respondents who are pressuring her to marry an older individual against her will. She has explicitly expressed her refusal to marry, citing her minority status and lack of legal capacity to consent. Despite filing a representation dated 13.03.2026 with the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Tarn Taran, no action has been taken.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a minor, aged 16 years as of the date of filing (07.08.2009 birth)
- She has submitted Annexure P-1 (birth proof) and Annexure P-3 (representation dated 13.03.2026)
- The representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, remains unaddressed
- The private respondents (No. 4 and 5) are alleged to be exerting undue influence for forced marriage
- No criminal complaint or FIR has been recorded by the police despite the petitioner’s plea
Procedural History
- 07.08.2009: Petitioner’s date of birth
- 13.03.2026: Petitioner files written representation to Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran
- 24.03.2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of BNSS
- 24.03.2026: Court hears arguments and issues directions
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argues that as a minor, she is entitled to protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Her refusal to marry is a clear indication of her being a child in need of care and protection. The State’s inaction violates her fundamental rights.
Respondents (State): Accepted notice and did not oppose the prayer. The State counsel acknowledged the legal obligation under the JJ Act and the binding precedent of P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Immediate protection from forced marriage
- Direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police to act on her representation dated 13.03.2026
- Production of the minor before the Child Welfare Committee under the JJ Act, 2015
- Enforcement of procedural safeguards under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a minor’s refusal to marry, coupled with familial pressure, qualifies her as a "child in need of care and protection" under Section 2(14)(vii) and (xii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, thereby triggering mandatory state intervention.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the binding precedent of P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana (CRWP-2139-2022), which held that forced marriage of minors constitutes a clear case of child in need of care and protection under Section 2(14)(vii) (exposure to harmful social practices) and Section 2(14)(xii) (abuse or exploitation). The counsel emphasized that the State’s failure to act on the representation dated 13.03.2026 amounted to a violation of Article 21 and the State’s positive obligation under the JJ Act.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the petitioner’s claims. The Deputy Advocate General accepted notice and acknowledged the applicability of the earlier judgment. The State conceded that the petitioner’s situation falls squarely within the protective ambit of the JJ Act and that the directions issued in P...... Minor Through Vikram must be applied.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which defines a child in need of care and protection to include any child who is "at risk of being subjected to harmful social practices" or "subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation". The Court noted that forced marriage of a minor, particularly when opposed by the child, constitutes both a social practice and an act of exploitation.
"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 reaffirmed its earlier holding in P...... Minor Through Vikram that the State cannot remain passive when a minor’s liberty and dignity are under threat. The failure to act on the representation dated 13.03.2026 was deemed a dereliction of statutory duty under Section 36 and Section 37 of the JJ Act, which mandate inquiry and protective orders by the Child Welfare Committee.
The Court further held that the obligation to act is not contingent upon a formal complaint or FIR. The mere existence of a representation by the minor, coupled with the known risk of forced marriage, triggers the State’s duty to intervene. The Court emphasized that the Child Welfare Police Officer must act proactively, not reactively.
The Verdict
The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Nuh within 10 days. Upon appearance, the Superintendent shall depute a Child Welfare Police Officer to produce the petitioner before the Child Welfare Committee 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, including interim custody and protection measures. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, shall consider the representation dated 13.03.2026 and provide necessary protection if a threat to life or liberty is established. The order does not bar criminal proceedings, if any, from proceeding under law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Forced Marriage Triggers Automatic State Duty
- Practitioners must now treat any representation by a minor opposing forced marriage as a statutory trigger under Section 2(14)(vii) and Section 2(14)(xii) of the JJ Act, 2015
- No formal FIR or complaint is required - a written representation to police suffices to activate protective mechanisms
- Failure to act constitutes a violation of Article 21 and may attract contempt proceedings
Child Welfare Police Officer Must Act Proactively
- The role of the Child Welfare Police Officer is not administrative but operational - they must physically produce the minor before the Committee
- The one-week timeline is mandatory and non-negotiable
- Police must document the minor’s statement and preserve evidence of coercion, even if no criminal case is filed
State’s Inaction Is Not an Option
- The judgment closes the loophole of "waiting for a complaint" - the State must act on information received, even if it comes from the minor directly
- District-level officers must be trained to recognize signs of forced marriage as a child protection issue, not a civil or family matter
- Legal aid societies and NGOs should be notified to assist minors in filing representations and monitoring compliance
