Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4) Do you think Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and the right to live with dignity, are violated by having different legal age for men and women to marry in India? Debate with suitable justifications. (250 words)

Topic:Salient features of Indian Society, Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

4) Do you think Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and the right to live with dignity, are violated by having different legal age for men and women to marry in India? Debate with suitable justifications. (250 words)

Indianexpress

 

Why this question:

The article talks about the petition that was recently filed challenging the legal age of marriage in India that is different for male and female. 

Key demand of the question:

The answer must provide for critical arguments upon the topic of different legal age for men and women to marry in India, one must present justifications as to how it violates the fundamental rights.

Directive:

Debate – Weigh up to what extent something is true. Persuade the reader of your argument by citing relevant research but also remember to point out any flaws and counter- arguments as well. Conclude by stating clearly how far you agree with the original proposition.

Structure of the answer:

Introduction: 

Begin with brief introduction on the legal age of marriage in India.

Body:

Discussion should include the following: 

Explain that the law prescribes that the minimum age of marriage is 21 and 18 years for men and women, respectively. The minimum age of marriage is distinct from the age of majority, which is gender neutral.

Explain why there is a need of minimum age in the first place? Discuss the historical evolution of this factor.

Discuss and debate why the age is different for men and women.

Explain why the country needs to reconsider the issue.

Substantiate your stand with suitable justifications by stating how it violates fundamental rights enshrined in article 14 and 21.

Conclusion:

Conclude with way forward.