Experts have raised serious concerns about the National Legal Services Authority’s (NALSA) new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to eliminate child marriage, titled ‘ASHA – Awareness, Support, Help, and Action Standard Operating Procedure -Towards Eliminating Child Marriage, 2025.’
The SOP, released in response to a Supreme Court directive, aims to offer comprehensive legal support and rehabilitation to survivors of child marriage. However, during an online discussion hosted by Enfold Proactive Health Trust and Tulir – Centre for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse on April 16, participants argued that the SOP falls short in several key areas. Over 100 attendees—including NGO workers, lawyers, child protection officials, and social workers—took part in the session.
Existing legal services overlooked
One of the most significant critiques came from child rights lawyer Anant Kumar Asthana, who welcomed the new financial provisions for the cause, but questioned the need to create new bodies like ASHA and Monitoring and Mentorship Bodies (MMBs) through the SOP. ASHA, an 18-member body, has been assigned responsibilities such as rehabilitation, appointing counsellors, and providing job training—tasks that are already being carried out by existing mechanisms.
Anant Kumar urged NALSA to build on the existing Legal Services Units for Children (LSUCs), instead of forming redundant structures.
LSUCs are district-level teams of trained lawyers — set up under NALSA’s 2024 Scheme on Child-Friendly Legal Services for Children — specifically designed to support children in legal matters, including child marriage cases. However, the new SOP makes no mention of these units.
“The topic of child marriage is very sensitive and should be addressed with a comprehensive set of guidelines to prevent any mishaps, which unfortunately the new SOP lacks,” Anant Kumar added.
Anindita Pattanayak, senior research associate at Enfold Trust, echoed his concerns. She described the SOP as an “overlapping structure,” where the high-powered ASHA Unit is tasked with responsibilities that frontline mechanisms are already handling.
She also pointed out that the new ASHA units, which are to include senior district officials like District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police, lack a clear coordination plan with existing bodies such as the LSUC, Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), and District Child Protection Units (DCPUs) — a confusion that could delay or derail support for vulnerable children.
No public consultations
Another major issue is that the SOP was drafted without any public consultation—a break from NALSA’s usual approach. Researchers and practitioners have stated that without input from people working directly with child marriage survivors, the SOP lacks the practical understanding needed to work on the ground.
Anindita pointed out, for example, that while the document attempts to provide rehabilitation, its interpretation is limited to “vocational training, counselling, and occasional awareness or art events.” She argued that this risked reducing rehabilitation to a checklist, rather than acknowledging it as a long-term, rights-based process.
Moreover, the examples cited in the SOP — such as training in “carpet making” or “beautician courses” — risk reinforcing a class-based and stereotypical view of child marriage survivors, rather than recognising their individual strengths and aspirations, she added.
Legal misconceptions, missed ground realities
Yet another concern is the SOP’s approach to legal aid in abortion-related cases. The document suggests that aid will be provided to assist a child marriage in filing a petition for abortion, which can be misleading. “This risks reinforcing the widespread misconception that a court order is needed for abortion,” Anindita said.
Under current law, a woman can end a pregnancy up to 20 weeks with the approval of one registered doctor. This can go up to 24 weeks for certain groups — such as minors or survivors of sexual violence — with the approval of two doctors. No court order is needed in either case. It is, hence, important for the SOP to clearly explain these legal limits and make a distinction between routine access to abortion and the rare situations where court orders might actually be required.
Anindita also noted that the SOP treats all child marriage cases the same, without acknowledging different realities. For example, the needs of a child at risk of marriage are very different from those of someone recently married, or married for years. She pointed out that a more nuanced approach, with tailored guidelines for each scenario, would have made the SOP more effective and aligned with legal standards and real-life complexities.
Another missed opportunity, she said, is the lack of focus on underutilised civil remedies like annulment under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. “Many are unaware of the option and those who wish to pursue it often face substantial barriers, including lack of family support, need for accommodation, challenges in resuming education, and navigating court processes,” she added.
Besides, despite international laws recognising children’s right to be heard, the SOP remains silent on their role in decision-making. This is particularly concerning in cases of self-initiated marriages or elopements where the complainant may be a family member rather than the child. “The SOP mandates that the panel lawyers will assist the complainant, with their prior consent of the complainant, before initiating legal proceedings. However, the complainant may not necessarily be the child victim,” Anindita said.
Researchers and practitioners, while welcoming the intent behind the SOP, have called for an urgent revision that prioritises legal clarity, aligns with existing frameworks, and engages with stakeholders and survivors.