Child marriage

The Child Marriage Restraint Act,1929, aimed at preventing the solemnisation of child marriages. It lays down the punishment for solemnisation of child marriages. Section 3 provides that a male between the ages of eighteen and twenty one years who enters into a child marriage shall be punished with a simple imprisonment of a term of fifteen days or fine upto one thousand rupees or both. Section 4 provides that a male above the age of twenty one years shall be punished with a simple imprisonment of three months and also fine. Section 5 provides the same punishment for solemnisation of child marriage. Section 6 prescribes the same punishment for the parents or guardians of the minor if they solemnise a child marriage or fail to prevent a child marriage from taking place. However, the Act prohibits women from being punished. Section 7 makes the offences under the Act cognizable in nature.
The Child Marriage Restraint Act has not been effective in preventing child marriages as it does not carry enough punitive result. Further, there is no social movement or awareness, specially in the rural areas to end child marriages.

Protection of civil rights

The Constitution of India rests on the principles of equality and bars any discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15 specially prohibits the State from discriminating on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Clause (2) of the Article prohibits any discrimination on these grounds which leads to disability in accessing any shops, restaurants, hotels, places of entertainment or from using any public wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads or places of resorts. Similarly, Article 16 prohibits any discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, place of birth or sex in the matters of employment to any job or profession.
Article 17 of the Constitution bans the practice of untouchability and makes any practice of untouchability an offence. The Protection of Civil Liberties Act, 1955, was enforced to prescribe for providing punishment for the practice of untouchability and any disability arising out of such practice. Section 3 of the Act punishes the act of preventing any person on the ground of untouchability from entering any place of worship or worshiping with a punishment of imprisonment with a term of not less than one month which might extend upto six months and also a fine which would be not less than one hundred rupees but may extend upto five hundred rupees. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the punishment for causing disability in the matters of entering public hotels, restaurants, dharamshalas, shops and social places, using jewellery or following social customs. Sections 5 lays the punishment for preventing any person on the ground of untouchability from entering hospital, dispensary, hostel or any educational institution. Section 6 lays down the punishment for refusing to sell any item or rendering any services to any person on the ground of untouchability. Section 7 prescribes punishment for any other offences arising out of untouchability including molesting or insulting any person with a similar punishment. Section 7A similarly;arly punishes a person for forcing another to do human scavenging based on the ground of caste. Section 10 provides that an abetment of any offence under the Act shall be punished with the same punishment as the offence itself.

Daughters' right to inheritance

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court observed that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 giving equal rights to daughters on the ancestral property will be applied to all women including to those born before the year 2005. The amended law treats daughters as 'coparceners' in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law since birth and would give them the same rights and liabilities as a son. The Court observed that a share in the ancestral property cannot be denied to any woman on the ground that she was born before 2005. The judgement further stated that the law is applicable in all property disputes filed before 2005 and pending when the law was framed. The judgement is a positive step towards ensuring the principle of equality and ensuring that daughters are treated with the same rights as sons. Earlier in 2015, the Apex Court had observed that for daughters to get share in the ancestral property, the father should have been alive in 2005 when the law was passed.