A minor fleeing forced marriage and unlawful confinement by family members is entitled to immediate state protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held, reinforcing that the state’s duty to safeguard children supersedes familial claims of authority. This judgment crystallizes the legal obligation of police and child welfare bodies to act proactively when minors are at risk of coercive marriage practices.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners are a 17-year-old minor girl and her 23-year-old companion, who have fled the petitioner’s family home after being subjected to threats and illegal confinement aimed at compelling her into a marriage against her will. The minor, who is below the age of majority, asserts her right to personal autonomy and seeks protection from physical harm by her relatives, who are alleged to possess significant local influence.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a representation dated 09.03.2026 with the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Patiala, seeking intervention. No effective action was taken. Consequently, they approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction to protect life and liberty.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing state authorities to:
- Provide immediate protection from threats by family members
- Ensure their safety while living together voluntarily
- Enforce compliance with child protection mechanisms under the Juvenile Justice Act
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a minor who flees her family to avoid forced marriage qualifies 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, and whether the state is obligated to initiate protective proceedings under Section 36 and 37.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on the court’s own precedent in P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana to argue that minors subjected to coercive familial pressure for marriage fall squarely within the statutory definition of children in need of protection. They emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to choose one’s partner and to be free from custodial control exercised through threats and confinement.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General accepted notice but did not contest the core legal position. He acknowledged the precedent and conceded that the state’s duty to protect minors under the Juvenile Justice Act is non-negotiable, particularly where there is a credible threat perception.
The Court's Analysis
The Court anchored its reasoning in the object and intent of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which is to prioritize the best interests of the child over familial or cultural norms. It reaffirmed that Section 2(14)(vii) includes children who are "subjected to social or cultural practices which are harmful to their physical, mental or emotional well-being," and Section 2(14)(xii) covers those "whose parents or guardians are unable to provide for their basic needs due to neglect or abuse."
"The right to choose one’s life partner, even for a minor, cannot be extinguished by familial coercion. The state’s duty under the Juvenile Justice Act is not discretionary - it is mandatory."
The Court distinguished this from cases involving consensual relationships between adults, noting that the petitioner’s age places her under the statutory definition of a child. It held that the mere fact of cohabitation with a companion does not negate the child’s vulnerability to familial violence. The court also emphasized that the Child Welfare Committee must conduct an inquiry under Section 36 and determine custody and placement under Section 37, with interim protection measures as necessary.
The Court further directed the police to act on the representation dated 09.03.2026, treating it as a formal threat assessment under the Act. It clarified that protection under the Act does not immunize the petitioners from criminal liability if they are independently found to have committed a cognizable offence.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that the minor qualifies as a child in need of care and protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to immediately depute a Child Welfare Officer to produce her before the Child Welfare Committee within one week. All protective directions from the P...... Minor Through Vikram case were applied.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Child Welfare Committee Intervention Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must file writ petitions under Article 226 whenever a minor is at risk of forced marriage, even if no FIR has been filed
- Police cannot delay action pending family consent or mediation
- The Child Welfare Committee’s inquiry under Section 36 is not optional - it is a statutory trigger for protection
Police Must Act on Representations as Formal Threat Alerts
- Any written representation by a minor or next friend alleging coercion or confinement must be treated as a threat assessment under the JJ Act
- Failure to act may constitute a violation of Article 21 and expose officials to contempt proceedings
- Deputation of a Child Welfare Police Officer is now a non-discretionary duty
Protection Does Not Imply Immunity from Criminal Liability
- While the state must protect the minor’s life and liberty, this does not bar prosecution if the minor or companion is independently involved in a cognizable offence (e.g., abduction, elopement)
- Practitioners must advise clients that protection under the JJ Act and criminal liability are separate legal domains
- The judgment explicitly preserves the state’s power to investigate and prosecute under IPC or other statutes if warranted
