"Personal law may determine whether a marriage has been contracted but cannot create an exception to criminal law." Critically examine this in the context of recent judicial pronouncements on POCSO.

The POCSO Act, 2012 treats every person below 18 as a child, and her consent does not count in law [2]. In September 2026, the Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR under POCSO and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against a man who had married a 16-year-old under Muslim personal law. It held that "marriage does not advance a child's age" [1]. The principle is sound, but applying it raises real concerns.

Merits of the principle

• Status vs. crime: Marriage decides status, maintenance, legitimacy and residence. It cannot shield conduct that a secular penal statute forbids [1].
• No exception from Parliament: POCSO makes no exception for marriage or religion, so courts cannot bring one in through personal law [1][2].
• Uniformity: A puberty test would make protection vary by community. A single age line upholds Articles 14, 15(3) and 21.
• Judicial consistency: The ruling follows Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court held that sex with a wife aged 15–18 is rape.
• Deterrence: The 2019 amendment raised the minimum sentence for penetrative sexual assault from 7 to 10 years [3].

Concerns

• Victim's voice: The girl called the marriage voluntary and supported the husband's bail plea [1]. Prosecution may leave her and her child without support.
• Mandatory reporting: The case came to light at a government hospital [1]. Fear of police may push pregnant minors towards unsafe home deliveries.
• Divergent High Courts: Some High Courts have earlier protected such marriages after puberty. This uncertainty will remain until the Supreme Court decides.
• Court burden: 404 exclusive POCSO courts sit among 754 Fast Track Special Courts [4]. Cases of consensual adolescent marriage compete with cases of violent abuse.
• Article 25 tension: Critics see an erosion of religious freedom, though that freedom is expressly subject to public order, morality and health.

On balance, the dictum rightly separates civil status from criminal liability. The way forward is not religion-based exemptions. It lies in guided sentencing discretion for cases involving 16–18-year-olds, as the Law Commission suggested (Report No. 283, 2023). It also needs survivor-centred hospital protocols and compulsory marriage registration with age proof under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. This balance keeps criminal law uniform, protects children's dignity under Article 21 and advances SDG target 5.3 on ending child marriage.