Authored By: Dev Sanskriti
BPSMV
ABSTRACT.
This article examines the absence of uniformity in the legal age of marriage for brides and grooms. “The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, classifies a male who has not completed 21 years and a female who has not completed 18 years are defined as child.” [1] Although a 2021 bill proposed a uniform marriageable age, it has not yet been enacted. Alongside these legal provisions, societal mindsets and orthodox practices continue to contribute to gender-based disparities. The article discusses how judges have interpreted the issues, the understanding of maturity for both genders, and the scope of possible amendments for uniformity. It further evaluates how the disparity impacts women’s health, educational opportunities, and decision making power. Beyond existing practices, the article emphasizes that the law should be framed equally, upholding customs only so far as they protect the future of both genders.
INRODUCTION.
Gender equality is one of the objectives of the Indian Constitution, yet the law continues to lay behind when it comes to the legal age of marriage for brides and grooms. “Under Section 5[iii] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the prescribed age is 18 years for brides and 21 years for grooms.” [2] Even the legislation intended to prevent child marriage defines the same unequal standard. This article seeks to examine rationale uniformity, approaches offered by judges and scholars, prevailing mindsets of people, and the way this law is applied. We live in the twenty first century in the world’s largest democracy, governed by laws and institutions that uphold justice. Yet certain provisions continue to reflect discrimination, particularly in matters of gender equality, and therefore require refinement.
FROM CUSTOM TO CODIFIED LAW.
Historically, customs formed the basis of personal laws in India. Over time, customs were codified into those consistent with fundamental rights and public policy were recognized as valid law. The evolution of Hindu law illustrates this process- reforms such as the introduction of divorce and the amendment granting daughters equal rights in coparcenary property reflected the changing social values and the demand for gender equality. In a similar way, the age of marriage, once rooted in customary practice, was codified under section 5[iii] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which fixed 21 years for the groom and 18 years for the bride. Therefore, laws relating to property rights, inheritance, or marriage should apply equally to all genders. This is not merely a question of personal law, for while every culture and community has the right to preserve its customs, such customs cannot prevail where they violate the principles of gender equality. The vision of our Constitution is to address contemporary challenges with these fundamental values in mind.”
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: A Uniform Application Beyond Personal Laws
Definition under the 2006 Act
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, applies uniformly to all communities across the country, irrespective of religion or personal laws. However, the Act retains the same unequal standard of age as personal laws, “by classifying male below 21 years and female below 18 years as child.” [1] This provision continues to reinforce gender disparity in the legal framework of marriageable age.
Proposed Changes in the 2021 Bill
To address this disparity, the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, was introduced in Parliament by the then Union Minister, “aimed to raise the legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 21 years, thereby bringing as par with man.”[4] Despite its objective of ensuring uniformity and promoting gender equality, the Bill remains pending and has not yet been enacted into law.
Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017)
In Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court observed that “sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether she is married or not.” Justice Madan B. Lokur further emphasized that “merely because a girl child between 15 and 18 years of age is married does not result in her ceasing to be a child or being mentally or physically capable of having sexual intercourse or indulging in any other sexual activity and conjugal relations.” [4]
These remarks are significant because they dismantle the outdated presumption that marriage automatically makes a young girl “mature.” The unequal legal standard for brides and grooms reflects a deeper societal mindset that women mature earlier and are therefore ready for marriage sooner. Genuine maturity cannot be tied to gender but is shaped by education, health, and opportunity.
Empirical data strengthens this view. “The Child Marriage: Global Synthesis Report (2017) by the International Centre for Research on Women and the World Bank shows that early marriage negatively affects fertility rates, educational attainment, women’s health and nutrition, and decision-making, intimate partner violence, challenging the belief that only girls need attention.”[8] Despite this, evidence consistently demonstrates that young brides face the most severe social, physical, and economic consequences.
Thus, the judgment and global studies together reveal that fixing a lower marriageable age for brides is not protective — it is a product of outdated orthodoxy that perpetuates gender inequality.
Constitutional Perspective
The Indian Constitution guarantees equality and dignity as non-negotiable fundamental rights. However, the continued existence of unequal marriageable ages for brides and grooms reflects a clear contradiction between statutory law and constitutional principles.
- Article 14: Right to Equality
“Article 14 guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” [5] Being a fundamental right, it cannot be abrogated even by Parliament. Yet, Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, prescribe different minimum age for women and men. This gender-based distinction is arbitrary and fails the test of reasonable classification, which requires that (i) the classification must be based on intelligible differentia, and (ii) such differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
The classification here is premised on the outdated assumption that women attain maturity earlier than men, an assumption dismantled by modern medical science, social research, and judicial pronouncements. Thus, the law perpetuates a stereotype rather than serving a legitimate state interest, thereby violating the guarantee of gender justice under Article 14.
- Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination
“Article 15(1) specifically prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.” [6] The marriageable age disparity directly discriminates based on sex, as it imposes a lower threshold of maturity and responsibility on women than on men.
Furthermore, “Article 15(3) empowers the State to make special provisions for women and children” [6], but this power is to be exercised to uplift and protect, not to perpetuate disadvantage. For instance, reservations in education or welfare schemes aim at empowerment.
In contrast, fixing a lower age of marriage for women normalizes early marriage and subjects them to heightened risks — thereby contradicting the spirit of protective discrimination.
If women are the ones who suffer the most due to early marriage — through loss of education, health complications, and reduced autonomy — the correct constitutional response is not to maintain inequality but to either provide them equal rights or protective measures that ensure delayed marriage. Thus, the present law stands inconsistent with the objectives of Article 15.
- Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted “Article 21 to encompass the right to live with dignity, including rights to education, health, reproductive choice, and bodily autonomy.”[7] Early marriage, particularly for girls, undermines all these rights.
A girl who has little say in decision-making and lacks a sense of ownership over her own body is vulnerable to unwanted pregnancies, nutritional deficiencies, and health risks. These consequences not only affect her but also the well-being of the child she bears, creating an intergenerational cycle of disadvantage. Moreover, premature marriage often forces girls out of school, curtailing their educational opportunities and thereby violating their right to development.
If women are constitutionally entitled to education and reproductive autonomy, then logically, they must be allowed the same level of maturity and decision-making capacity as men before entering marriage. Setting different legal ages denies them this equal footing and thus directly violates Article 21.
International Perspective: UNFPA’s Recognition
The international community has also emphasized the need for uniformity in marriageable age. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has categorically stated that “raising the legal age of marriage to 18 should be accompanied by improving access to quality education, awareness-raising in communities, addressing root causes, empowering girls.”[9] Alongside this, a woman should be enough mature first for her understanding towards society, her future goals, and about her married life.
Critical gaps in the prohibition of child marriage act
Fixing the legal age of marriage at 18 for women has created an unfortunate presumption in society that 18 is not a minimum but the only “right” age to marry a daughter. Studies consistently show that women suffer the most under this early marriage system—facing higher health risks, loss of educational opportunities, early fertility, and restricted decision-making power.
Consider a hypothetical situation: a girl married before turning 18 realizes at the age of 20 or 21 that she wants to annul the marriage. Under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, she no longer has a remedy, because the right to annul exists only until two years after attaining majority. In contrast, if her husband was also a “child” (below 21) at the time of marriage, he enjoys the option to annul the marriage until the age of 23. This discrepancy exposes how the law itself embeds inequality, granting boys a longer legal window while limiting a girl’s autonomy. This highlights the challenges and trauma faced by women under such circumstances and underscores the urgent need for legal and social reforms to ensure their development and well-being. The responsibility lies with our lawmakers, and such reforms would directly contribute to the overall growth of society by enabling women to realize their full potential.
Conclusion
It is often argued that merely changing the law cannot end inequality unless people and society themselves change their mindsets. The first and most important step should be taken by our representatives in Parliament to pass the bill, so that there will be a real fear of punishment and of the marriage being declared void if someone marries off their daughter without her consent or even with it. A girl must be mature enough to decide, because in most cases her consent is not taken, and even if it is, can she truly be mature enough to marry a man of 21 when she herself is only 18? However, history proves otherwise: the law has the power to influence social behavior and push society toward reform. If the marriageable age for both genders were equal, young women would gain more time for education, employment, and independent decision-making. They would enter marriage with the same maturity as their husbands, allowing for healthier partnerships based on equality rather than hierarchy. Thus, legal reform is not only necessary but also a decisive step toward securing a better future for both genders and, ultimately, for the nation.
BIBLOGRAPHY
Primary Sources:
Statutes
1.The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 1955, Section 2[a] [India]
2.The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 5 [iii] [India]
Bill
3.The Prohibition of Child Marriage [Amendment] Bill, 2021, Bill.no. 163 of 2021, Section 2[India].
Cases
4.Independent thought v. Union of India, (2017),10 SCC 800 (India).
Constitution
5.Indian Constitution article 14.
6.Indian Constitution article 15 clause (1) and clause (3).
7.Indian Constitution article 21.
Secondary Sources:
Report
8.Independent thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800, citing World Bank and International Centre for Research on Women, Report (2017).
9.United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Report on Child Marriage (2013).
