38.6c New Delhi, India, Friday, February 13, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice to Centre, States/UT for Revision of Age of Majority and changing the 150 years old Act

By Saakshi S. Rawat      29 July, 2021 11:58 AM      0 Comments
Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice to Centre, States/UT for Revision of Age of Majority and changing the 150 years old Act

The Punjab and Haryana High Court last week issued notice to the Centre, Punjab and Haryana States, and the UT Chandigarh government to evaluate whether the age of majority should be changed, quoting the Indian Majority Act, which was passed about 150 years ago (146 years to be exact).

Justice Amol Rattan Singh's bench also ordered the Home Secretary that the Chief Secretary shall inform the Court if there is any intention of introducing an amendment to change the age of majority upward.

The court while observing the Government stated that, This court feels compelled to issue notice to the Union of India, the States of Punjab and Haryana, as well as the UT of Chandigarh, to get in to the issue of whether the age of majority needs to be amended or not, the Indian Majority Act, 1875, being an Act enacted more than 150 years ago; notably with teens currently, who are commonly still students well into their 20s, while this was not always the case when the aforementioned Act was written.

The matter in brief

The High Court issued this directive in response to a protection petition submitted by a couple in a live-in relationship. The Court had ordered the State of Haryana to determine the couple's age when it heard the case on 29th June.

In response to this order, the state counsel presented an affidavit filed by Panchkula ACP before the Bench during the hearing last week.

According to the affidavit, the pair was above 18, with the male being three months short of 21 and the girl being slightly short of 19.

Court's directions

The Court noted that, due to the couple's age, the petitioners must be deemed adults (whether this is true psychologically or not is a different matter altogether).

Therefore, the Court said, There really is no need to use the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, if they have decided to live together and have confirmed no marriage between them. As a result, this court has no choice but to give instructions to respondents 2 and 3 to continue to safeguard the petitioners' life and liberty.

Ultimately, the Court stated that sending notifications is entirely within the legislative domain; but, because these types of instances are becoming more common these days, it is thought important to at least get the reaction of the governments concerned.

In a ruling issued last year by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was said that youngsters nowadays achieve both physiological and psychological maturity far before they reach the age of majority set by law.

According to Justice Sanjay Kumar, it is a scientifically proven fact that girls are more matured than boys of the same age, which is why the age of majority [for marriage purposes] is set at 18 for girls and 21 for boys.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-notifies-2026-guidelines-for-senior-advocate-designation-scraps-point-system-and-interviews
Trending Judiciary
SC Notifies 2026 Guidelines for Senior Advocate Designation; Scraps Point System and Interviews [Read Notification]

Supreme Court notifies 2026 guidelines for Senior Advocate designation, abolishing point system and interviews; introduces holistic evaluation process.

12 February, 2026 04:00 PM
sunjay-kapur-will-dispute-priya-sachdev-files-application-to-dismiss-mil-rani-kapurs-family-trust-fraud-allegations
Trending Judiciary
Sunjay Kapur Will Dispute: Priya Sachdev Files Application To Dismiss MIL Rani Kapur’s Family Trust Fraud Allegations

Delhi HC issues notice on Priya Kapur’s plea to dismiss Rani Kapur’s suit alleging a fraudulent family trust to divert late Sunjay Kapur’s estate.

12 February, 2026 04:32 PM

TOP STORIES

resignation-on-medical-grounds-attracts-forfeiture-of-pension-service-madras-hc-full-bench
Trending Judiciary
Resignation on Medical Grounds Attracts Forfeiture of Pension Service: Madras HC Full Bench [Read Order]

Madras High Court Full Bench rules resignation on medical grounds leads to forfeiture of past service under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

09 February, 2026 12:16 PM
madras-hc-clarifies-section-37-of-ndps-act-not-applicable-to-acceptance-of-bond-for-appearance
Trending Judiciary
Madras HC Clarifies: Section 37 of NDPS Act Not Applicable to Acceptance of Bond for Appearance [Read Order]

Madras High Court says Section 37 NDPS Act doesn’t apply to acceptance of bond for appearance on summons, as it is distinct from grant of bail.

09 February, 2026 12:20 PM
sc-refers-matter-to-larger-bench-to-resolve-conflicting-judgments-on-third-partys-right-under-under-order-ix-rule-13-cpc
Trending Judiciary
SC Refers Matter To Larger Bench To Resolve Conflicting Judgments On Third Party’s Right Under Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [Read Order]

Supreme Court refers the issue of third party rights under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to a larger bench to resolve conflicting judgments on ex parte decrees.

09 February, 2026 12:35 PM
bombay-sessions-court-grants-bail-in-193-crore-cyber-fraud-case-reaffirms-bail-is-rule-jail-is-exception
Trending Judiciary
Bombay Sessions Court Grants Bail in ₹1.93 Crore Cyber Fraud Case, Reaffirms ‘Bail Is Rule, Jail Is Exception’ [Read Order]

Bombay Sessions Court grants bail in ₹1.93 crore cyber fraud case, citing right to liberty as investigation is complete and accused not direct beneficiary.

09 February, 2026 04:17 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email