NEW DELHI: After decades of judicial activism to protect women rights starting with Vishaka case on sexual harassment at workplace, the Supreme Court on Monday toned down its judicial activism and refused to take up a petition seeking uniform marriageable age for men and women, which now is pegged at 21 and 18 years respectively.A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, while dealing with Ashwini Upadhyay's petition which was transferred to SC from the Delhi HC, asked, "Can we strike down marriageable age of 18 years as arbitrary? If we strike it down women and girls of any age can get married as the Supreme Court cannot legislate to fix 21 years as their marriageable age."Women protest against Assam govt amid Assam child marriage crackdown row"These are matters we must leave to the wisdom of Parliament, assemblies, and the governments.

We are not exclusive custodians of the Constitution.

Uniform marriage age for men and women, howsoever desirable, must be left to the legislature and the government.

Neither can the Supreme Court issue a direction to Parliament, nor can it legislate," the CJI-led bench said.Interestingly, the SC had invoked void in legislation to lay down a detailed 12-point guidelines to deal with sexual harassment of women at workplace in its Vishaka judgment in 1997.

The SC had said: "We direct that the above guidelines and norms would be strictly observed in all workplaces for the preservation and enforcement of the right to gender equality of the working women.

These directions would be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field."Should husbands be exempted from rape charge within a marriage?Similarly, though Medical Termination of Pregnancy permits termination of a 20-week-old fetus, extendable to 24-weeks pregnancy if two experts opined safety of mother, the SC and the HCs have been repeatedly allowing termination of more than 24 week pregnancies.

The SC had allowed entry of women in the age group of 10-50 years into Sabarimala temple, but has hedged the issue relating to entry of Muslim women into mosques for namaz.When the SC refused to budge from its stand not to entertain Upadhyay's PIL, the advocate-turned serial PIL litigant gave vent to his frustration - "It would have been better to keep the petition in Delhi HC for adjudication.

What is the purpose in transferring it to SC and then dismissing it."However, the SC agreed to consider a petition by Chetna Welfare Society, which sought a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The bench asked the Centre to file a response in four weeks.