The Supreme Court’s recent observation urging the Union government to consider a “Romeo–Juliet clause” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has reopened a long-simmering debate in Indian criminal law: how to balance child protection with adolescent autonomy. The court’s remarks signal growing judicial unease with the blanket criminalisation of consensual sexual relationships between teenagers close in age.
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
While setting aside an Allahabad High Court order on age determination in a bail matter, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh urged the Union Law Secretary to explore measures to curb the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The judges suggested the introduction of a “Romeo–Juliet clause”, a legal exception that would protect consensual sexual activity between adolescents who are close in age from prosecution.
The court described POCSO as a “solemn articulation of justice” but warned that its misuse has created a “grim societal chasm”, particularly when the law is deployed by families to punish or prevent teenage relationships rather than address sexual exploitation.
Why the Age of Consent Is at the Centre of the Debate
Under POCSO, a “child” is any person below 18 years of age, and the law does not recognise consent by a minor. As a result, all sexual activity involving a person under 18 is criminalised, irrespective of whether it is consensual, non-exploitative, or between peers.
This strict liability framework was designed to provide an absolute protective shield for children. However, courts are increasingly encountering cases where the accused is also a minor or a young adult barely older than the complainant, and the relationship is clearly consensual.
The Case for a Romeo–Juliet or Close-in-Age Exception
The push for reform has been strengthened by a pending public interest litigation before the Supreme Court on safeguards in the prosecution of sexual offences. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, assisting the court as amicus curiae, has argued for either reading down the age of consent or introducing statutory exceptions.
Her submissions emphasise:
- Adolescents aged 16–18 have “evolving capacities” to make decisions about their bodies.
- The “mature minor” doctrine in common law recognises that capacity does not suddenly emerge at 18.
- A close-in-age exemption (for instance, between a 16- and 17-year-old) would prevent incarceration in cases devoid of coercion or abuse.
She has also argued that the current framework violates adolescents’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Government’s Argument for Status Quo
The Union government has consistently opposed lowering the age of consent or introducing legislative exceptions. It has maintained that 18 years is a deliberate and carefully chosen threshold to protect minors from exploitation, manipulation and trafficking.
According to the government:
- Minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful consent.
- Any dilution could create loopholes for adult offenders to escape liability.
- Judicial discretion, rather than statutory exceptions, is sufficient to address hard cases.
The Law Commission of India echoed this cautious approach in 2023, advising against lowering the age of consent but suggesting greater sentencing discretion where there is tacit consent from adolescents aged 16–18.
What the Data Reveals About Misuse
Empirical evidence has strengthened judicial concerns. A study by Enfold Proactive Health Trust and UNICEF found that nearly one-fourth of POCSO cases in Maharashtra, Assam and West Bengal (2016–2020) involved consensual “romantic” relationships.
These cases often follow a pattern:
- Families file kidnapping or rape charges against boys their daughters are romantically involved with.
- Such cases frequently involve inter-caste or inter-religious relationships.
- Conviction rates are low because the complainants later testify in favour of the accused.
Health and Social Consequences of Over-Criminalisation
The criminalisation of adolescent sexuality has spillover effects beyond the criminal justice system. Mandatory reporting provisions under POCSO require doctors to inform the police about underage pregnancies or sexual activity, discouraging adolescents from seeking reproductive and sexual health services.
This undermines public health goals and pushes vulnerable young people further into risk rather than protection.
Why Judicial Discretion Alone Is Falling Short
High Courts across India have often quashed POCSO proceedings in clearly consensual teenage relationships, noting that the law was not meant to punish “teenage love”. However, such relief usually comes after prolonged incarceration or trial, causing irreversible harm to the accused.
The Supreme Court’s recent remarks indicate that case-by-case judicial discretion is an inadequate substitute for a structural legal solution.
What to Note for Prelims?
- POCSO Act criminalises all sexual activity involving persons below 18.
- Supreme Court suggested a “Romeo–Juliet clause” to prevent misuse.
- Law Commission opposed lowering age of consent but suggested sentencing discretion.
- UNICEF-linked studies show high proportion of consensual cases under POCSO.
What to Note for Mains?
- Tension between child protection and adolescent autonomy in criminal law.
- Constitutional implications of blanket criminalisation of consent.
- Role of empirical data in shaping judicial and legislative reform.
- Limits of judicial discretion and need for statutory clarity.
