<p>The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea to ensure uniform age of marriage for men and women, saying it can't issue mandamus to Parliament to legislate. </p>.<p>"We must defer to ultimate wisdom of Parliament. We must not perceive ourselves as exclusive custodian of law. Parliament is also custodian of law," a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said.</p>.<p>Dealing with a PIL by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the bench said allowing his plea for striking the minimum age of marriage for girls fixed currently as 18 years would amount to leaving them with no minimum age of marriage.</p>.<p>Upadhyay said this was a petition for transfer of a pending plea from the Delhi High Court to this court. He said since a law has been moved in Parliament to make the minimum age of marriage at 21 years for both men and women and has been referred to the standing committee, a response should be called from the Union government. He said this was a question related to gender equality and the court as custodian of law must intervene to remove the anomaly to prescribe minimum age of marriage as 21 years for both men and women.</p>.<p>As the court said it can't issue orders to legislate, Upadhyay said it would have been better to let the Delhi High Court examine the matter.</p>.<p>His remark triggered strong reactions from the bench which said, "We don't want your gratuitous comments on us. We are entrusted to do our duty under the Constitution and we are not here to please you or any section of polity. This is not a political forum. We don't owe you an explanation".</p>.<p>The court also rejected a plea by Upadhyay to grant him liberty to approach the Law Commission in the matter.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea to ensure uniform age of marriage for men and women, saying it can't issue mandamus to Parliament to legislate. </p>.<p>"We must defer to ultimate wisdom of Parliament. We must not perceive ourselves as exclusive custodian of law. Parliament is also custodian of law," a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said.</p>.<p>Dealing with a PIL by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the bench said allowing his plea for striking the minimum age of marriage for girls fixed currently as 18 years would amount to leaving them with no minimum age of marriage.</p>.<p>Upadhyay said this was a petition for transfer of a pending plea from the Delhi High Court to this court. He said since a law has been moved in Parliament to make the minimum age of marriage at 21 years for both men and women and has been referred to the standing committee, a response should be called from the Union government. He said this was a question related to gender equality and the court as custodian of law must intervene to remove the anomaly to prescribe minimum age of marriage as 21 years for both men and women.</p>.<p>As the court said it can't issue orders to legislate, Upadhyay said it would have been better to let the Delhi High Court examine the matter.</p>.<p>His remark triggered strong reactions from the bench which said, "We don't want your gratuitous comments on us. We are entrusted to do our duty under the Constitution and we are not here to please you or any section of polity. This is not a political forum. We don't owe you an explanation".</p>.<p>The court also rejected a plea by Upadhyay to grant him liberty to approach the Law Commission in the matter.</p>
