A special court in Raigad district has granted anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, highlighting the intricate legal conflicts arising from tribal customs and national child protection laws in India.
Case Background and Court Order
The case involves an Adivasi man who married a minor girl in 2025 according to local tribal customs, where early marriages are a traditional practice. The matter came to light in September when the girl was taken to a hospital for childbirth, and hospital authorities, mandated by the POCSO Act to report suspected child sexual abuse, alerted the police. An FIR was registered as the girl was under 18, the age of consent under the POCSO Act.
In his anticipatory bail plea, the man argued that the marriage was conducted per community norms, the offence was registered solely due to the girl's minority status, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Special Judge S C Shinde of the Panvel court, in an order passed on January 13, 2026, noted the "complex issues" stemming from tribal laws governing marriage and their clash with the POCSO Act.
Judicial Observations on Tribal Customs
The court observed that in many Adivasi communities, marriages are performed before children reach adulthood, often leading to legal cases when minors are involved. Judge Shinde stated, "For tribal communities, laws are more complex. The tribes have their own traditional laws governing marriage, which are based on their own customs & practices. Many Adivasi communities are not aware about prevalent laws and their literacy rate is low especially with regard to provisions of laws. This scenario has created complex issues and has become a cause of conflict with regard to execution of laws."
Considering the nature of allegations and facts on record, the court held that a case was made out to grant anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need to balance legal mandates with cultural sensitivities.
Broader Legal Context and Precedents
This case is not isolated; similar issues have been flagged in previous judicial pronouncements. In 2024, the Odisha High Court highlighted how tribal traditions, such as boys and girls living together after puberty, often result in criminalization under the POCSO Act. The High Court noted that while the Act aims to protect children from non-consensual and forced sexual relationships, its strict application in tribal areas can lead to "widespread injustice, resulting in uncalled for arrests and incarceration."
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court urged the Centre to consider introducing a "Romeo-Juliet clause" to exempt genuine adolescent relationships from the rigour of the law, reflecting ongoing debates about legal reforms.
Implications and Future Considerations
The Raigad court's decision underscores the persistent tension between India's progressive child protection statutes and deep-rooted tribal customs. Key points include:
- Legal Mandates vs. Cultural Practices: The POCSO Act requires mandatory reporting by institutions like hospitals, but this can conflict with tribal marriage norms.
- Awareness and Literacy: Low literacy rates and lack of legal awareness in tribal communities exacerbate these conflicts.
- Judicial Discretion: Courts are increasingly recognizing these complexities, as seen in bail grants and calls for legislative amendments.
As India grapples with these challenges, the case serves as a reminder of the need for nuanced legal approaches that protect children while respecting cultural diversity, potentially through better education, community engagement, and tailored legal provisions.
