Can justice truly be equal when a wealthy offender can readily pay a statutory fine while an impoverished defendant faces imprisonment for the same offence? This article confronts the moral and constitutional paradox created by the alternative financial penalties prescribed under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2024.
It examines whether fixed fines may unintentionally create a two-tier system of punishment in which affluent offenders can effectively purchase their liberty while poverty becomes an additional penal burden. The article considers substantive equality, proportionality, judicial discretion and the relationship between financial punishment and meaningful child protection.
Rather than calling for the abolition of fines, it proposes a fairer approach based on the offender’s financial capacity, the gravity of the offence, compensation for the child and the removal of any economic benefit derived from the unlawful marriage. Its central argument is simple: a child’s future must never become a transaction—and neither should an offender’s liberty.