Abstract
The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over the misuse of the POCSO Act in consensual adolescent relationships, warning that child protection laws must not become instruments of punishment. Highlighting cases where teenagers are criminalised due to rigid age-of-consent rules, the Court has urged the Union Government to consider introducing a “Romeo–Juliet clause” to protect voluntary, non-exploitative relationships between adolescents close in age.
This article examines the Supreme Court’s observations, the constitutional implications of POCSO misuse, and how a balanced, rights-based reform can uphold child safety while preventing injustice, judicial backlog, and erosion of personal liberty.
Introduction
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was enacted with an unquestionably noble purpose: to shield children from sexual abuse, exploitation, and trafficking. Over a decade later, however, the Supreme Court of India has sounded a serious caution. In several recent observations, the Court has flagged a disturbing trend—a law meant to protect children is increasingly being used to punish adolescents engaged in consensual relationships.
This concern has revived a long-pending debate in Indian criminal law: Can child protection coexist with adolescent autonomy? And if so, how?
The Case That Triggered the Debate
The discussion gained urgency when the Supreme Court examined an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against a bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a POCSO case. The High Court had granted bail after noting inconsistencies in the victim’s age and a statement suggesting that the relationship was consensual.
While the Supreme Court chose not to interfere with the bail, it used the occasion to underline two crucial issues:
- Age determination must strictly follow the law, particularly Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015—giving priority to school records and birth certificates before resorting to medical tests.
- Mechanical application of the POCSO Act in consensual adolescent relationships leads to grave injustice.
It was in this context that the Court urged the government to consider introducing a “Romeo–Juliet clause” in future amendments to the POCSO Act.
Understanding the Rigidity of the POCSO Act
Under the POCSO framework, 18 years is an absolute age of consent. Any sexual activity involving a person below this age is criminal—irrespective of consent, intent, or proximity in age. This strict liability model was designed to protect children from predators. But reality has exposed its limitations.
Courts across India have increasingly encountered cases where:
- Teenagers are in voluntary, non-exploitative relationships.
- Families, disapproving of the relationship due to caste, class, or honour concerns, invoke POCSO to criminalise the boy.
- Ages are sometimes misreported to bring the case within the strict provisions of POCSO.
The result is devastating: young men face years of trial and incarceration, even when the relationship involved no coercion or abuse.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh made pointed observations:
- POCSO is being misused to “morally police” adolescent relationships.
- Consensual relationships between teenagers are being treated on par with heinous sexual crimes, which dilutes the seriousness of genuine abuse cases.
- Such misuse steals formative years of adolescents and clogs the criminal justice system.
The Court warned that child protection should not transform into child punishment.
What Is the Romeo–Juliet Clause?
The proposed Romeo–Juliet clause is not about diluting child protection. Instead, it aims to introduce measured flexibility.
In simple terms, such a clause would:
- Exempt consensual, non-exploitative relationships between adolescents close in age from criminal prosecution under POCSO.
- Focus on intent, voluntariness, and absence of abuse or trafficking.
- Protect teenagers nearing adulthood (for example, 16–18 years) from being criminalised for mutual relationships.
Similar age-gap exemptions exist in several jurisdictions worldwide and are designed to distinguish predatory conduct from peer relationships.
Beyond Mechanical Application: A Call for Sensitivity
The Supreme Court stressed that POCSO cases must not be decided by age alone. Authorities must assess:
| Assessment Factors |
|---|
| The nature of the relationship |
| Statements of the alleged victim |
| Whether there was coercion, dominance, or exploitation |
A purely mechanical approach, the Court observed, undermines justice and constitutional values.
Judicial Activism or Necessary Intervention?
Critics may ask whether the Court has crossed into legislative territory. However, the intervention reflects a deeper constitutional responsibility.
Current Ground Realities
India is witnessing:
- A surge in POCSO undertrials
- Acquittals after years, indicating delayed and distorted justice
- Overburdened courts and prisons
More importantly, the misuse of POCSO often reflects social morality overriding constitutional liberty—where honour, patriarchy, and caste anxieties drive prosecutions rather than the voice of the child.
In stepping in, the Supreme Court acted as the guardian of constitutional morality, urging the legislature to recalibrate the law without undermining its protective core.
Constitutional Implications
The arbitrary use of POCSO in consensual adolescent cases raises serious constitutional concerns:
| Constitutional Provision | Implication |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | Equality before law is violated when the law is selectively weaponised. |
| Article 21 | Unjust prosecution infringes the right to life and personal liberty. |
| Article 19 | Freedom of association is indirectly curtailed. |
| Article 39(f) (DPSPs) | The State’s duty to ensure dignity and healthy development of children is compromised when adolescence itself is criminalised. |
A rights-sensitive interpretation of child protection law is no longer optional—it is essential.
The Road Ahead
The ball is now in the government’s court. Possible responses include:
- Legislative amendment introducing a Romeo–Juliet clause
- Executive guidelines for police and prosecutors to prevent misuse
- Judicial and police sensitisation to distinguish abuse from adolescent consent
Such reforms would not weaken POCSO. Instead, they would restore its credibility, reduce judicial backlog, and ensure that the law serves its true purpose.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a critical shift—from moral policing to constitutional morality. It recognises that a law framed to protect children must not become a tool of social control or patriarchal punishment.
By calling for a Romeo–Juliet clause, the Court has opened the door to a more balanced, humane, and constitutionally aligned child protection regime—one that punishes predators, not young love.
The question now is whether the legislature will rise to the moment and translate this judicial warning into meaningful reform.
