While the passage of the Punjab Child Marriage Restraint Act 2026 was met with widespread celebration, it was not without opposition. The debate in the provincial assembly laid bare the deep-seated tensions between progressive legal reforms and conservative social values. This article examines the arguments raised by opponents of the law and why they failed to halt its passage.
Arguments from “Societal Values”
During the assembly debate, some lawmakers urged legislators not to place the bill above “societal values”. They also raised concerns about the “moral implications” of “entirely restricting early marriages”. This reflects a common argument that any attempt to reform traditional practices is an attack on the social fabric and an imposition of foreign values. These arguments are often used to justify patriarchal norms and resist any change that threatens the existing power structure.
The Proposal for Court Permission
A proposal by PML-N lawmaker Zulfiqar Ali Shah that those below 18 should be allowed to marry with court permission is a telling example of the effort to water down the law. While ostensibly concerned with individual cases, such a provision would have created a massive loophole, essentially preserving the practice of child marriage under a veneer of legal approval. It would have shifted the decision from parents to a court, but still allowed girls to be married before 18. Azma Bokhari forcefully opposed this, highlighting the consequences of child marriage for girls.
Religious Interpretations
Opposition to the law is often framed in religious terms, with some clerics and lawmakers claiming that a marriageable age of 18 contradicts Islamic principles. The Council of Islamic Ideology, a constitutional body that advises the government on religious issues, has previously opposed amendments to raise the marriage age, citing “religious grounds”. However, this argument is contested by many Islamic scholars who argue that Islam requires maturity and consent for marriage, values that are compatible with a minimum age of 18. The Minister of State for Law and Justice has stated that Islam views marriage as a sacred covenant based on maturity, consent, and responsibility, aligning with child protection.
Azma Bokhari’s Powerful Rebuttal
Azma Bokhari, in a powerful rebuttal, challenged the opponents’ hypocrisy. She criticized the practice of “using girls to settle disputes” and asked whether women should continue to carry the burden of social injustices. Her most pointed question was: “Will they marry off their daughters at the age of 9 or 11?” “The answer is a definitive no. But they are pretty fine seeing the underage girls of others married”. This exposed the double standard at play: while opponents would not subject their own daughters to early marriage, they were comfortable with it happening to other girls.
The Failure of Opposition
Despite these arguments, the bill was passed by a majority vote. The opposition, while vocal, was unable to muster enough support to block the legislation. This indicates a shift in public opinion, with an increasing number of people recognizing the harms of child marriage and the need for legal protection. The debate, however, highlighted the ongoing struggle to reconcile religious and cultural traditions with the rights of women and children.