[ad_1]
The Supreme Court on Thursday requested the Centre to state what steps have been taken to implement prohibition on little one marriages, after a public curiosity litigation (PIL) alleged that prohibition officers underneath the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act, 2006 usually are not being appointed to implement the ban due to which the observe remains to be prevalent.
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
Hearing the PIL filed by the Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud directed the Union ministry of ladies and little one improvement to file an up to date standing report by accumulating information from states on the “nature and extent” of kid marriages.
The bench, additionally comprising justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, additionally requested the Centre to apprise the court docket of the steps taken to implement the 2006 Act and insurance policies formulated to effectuate that function. The matter can be heard subsequent in July.
Additional solicitor normal Madhavi Divan showing for the Centre informed the court docket that the problem has been detaining the eye of Parliament the place a invoice has been moved to boost the marriageable age of ladies to 21 years throughout all communities. The similar is pending earlier than the Standing Committee, she stated.
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
Divan added that there are authorities on the state stage underneath the 2006 Act and it’s the accountability of the state governments to nominate little one marriage prohibition officers.
Also Read:Empowerment is the path to stopping child marriage
The PIL claimed earlier than the court docket that not all states have appointed prohibition officers, and that, in some states, block improvement officers in districts got further accountability underneath the Act.
“The Union shall engage with states to apprise the court on the implementation of Section 16 of the Act on the appointment of prohibition officers. The affidavit shall also indicate whether the officer has been given other multifarious duties,” the bench stated in its order.
[adinserter block=”4″]
[ad_2]
Source link