Supreme Court Recommends Amendments to POCSO Act
On January 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of India recommended that the government explore a ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause within the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. This suggestion came during a hearing where the court set aside an Allahabad High Court decision regarding age determination protocols in a bail case.
The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, expressed concerns about the increasing misuse of the POCSO Act, highlighting how it has created what they termed a “grim societal chasm.” The court’s recommendation aims to distinguish consensual relationships among adolescents from exploitative acts, reflecting a judicial discomfort with the blanket criminalization of consensual acts between minors.
Understanding the POCSO Act
The POCSO Act, enacted to protect children from sexual offences, defines a child as anyone under the age of 18. Under this law, any sexual engagement involving a minor is treated as a criminal act, regardless of consensuality. This has raised concerns about adolescents’ autonomy and the law’s application in non-exploitative arrangements.
The Supreme Court’s observation comes amid a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in which the age of consent is a crucial point. The recommendation for a ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause, which could exempt close-in-age consensual relationships from prosecution for statutory rape, draws parallels with similar provisions in several countries, including the United States.
Context and Implications
The push for amending the law has gained momentum with legal professionals and civil society advocating for a nuanced approach to adolescent relationships. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, serving as amicus curiae in the ongoing PIL, has argued for the re-evaluation of the current age of consent, asserting that adolescents possess the evolving capacity necessary for making decisions about their sexual autonomy.
Jaising’s position reflects growing concern that the current legal framework unjustly infringes on young individuals’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. She has urged the court to recognize that treating all those under 18 as incapable of consent overlooks biological and developmental realities.
The Proposed ‘Romeo-Juliet’ Clause
The legal proposal outlines a ‘close-in-age’ exception, meaning that consensual acts between adolescents who are relatively close in age—such as a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old—would not classify as criminal offenses. This amendment could prevent the unjust incarceration of young individuals engaged in non-coercive relationships.
The Union government, however, has taken a hard stance against any reduction in the age of consent or the introduction of legislative exceptions. According to government submissions, the set age of 18 represents a well-considered decision aimed at shielding minors from potential manipulation and exploitation.
Government’s Concerns
The government’s argument centers on the belief that minors lack the necessary legal and developmental capabilities to provide meaningful consent. A strict liability approach—wherein consent is deemed irrelevant—was deemed necessary to safeguard children from vulnerable situations, especially in interactions with adults who hold positions of authority or trust over them.
In opposing any amendments to the existing framework, the government has posited that modifying the age of consent or introducing exceptions could result in loopholes, undermining the legal protections established to combat child abuse and trafficking.
Empirical Evidence and Judicial Discretion
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment highlights a growing recognition of the empirical data regarding cases filed under the POCSO Act. A joint study conducted by Enfold Proactive Health Trust and UNICEF revealed that approximately 25% of POCSO cases in Maharashtra, Assam, and West Bengal between 2016 and 2020 were characterized as ‘romantic,’ demonstrating that both parties were involved in consensual relationships.
This data suggests a troubling trend of families misusing the POCSO Act to control young people’s relationships, particularly among those in inter-caste or inter-religious unions. In many instances, parents resort to filing false charges of kidnapping and rape against young men who elope with their daughters, leading to a low conviction rate as victims often testify in favor of the accused.
Health Implications
The ramifications of criminalizing adolescent sexuality extend into health domains as well. Jaising pointed out that mandatory reporting provisions in the POCSO Act compel medical professionals to report underage pregnancies or sexual activities to law enforcement, which discourages adolescents from seeking crucial sexual and reproductive health services. This culture of fear surrounding legal repercussions can hinder public health efforts aimed at empowering young individuals.
Dozens of High Courts throughout India have interpreted the POCSO Act’s applications flexibly, frequently quashing criminal proceedings in romantic cases. Previous decisions have affirmed that the aim of the POCSO Act is not to penalize teenage relationships, yet the impact on young men’s lives is significant, often resulting in prolonged detentions while awaiting trial outcomes.
Judicial Acknowledgment of Legislative Gaps
The matter escalated when the Law Commission of India, in 2023, advised against a reduction in the age of consent to 16. However, it acknowledged the pressing need to address these issues by introducing discretion in judicial sentencing for cases involving minors aged 16 to 18. This approach aims to balance safeguarding children’s rights while providing legal frameworks to navigate adolescent relationships.
As highlighted by the Supreme Court, the ongoing efforts to criminalize adolescent sexuality may lead to adverse outcomes where protective laws devolve into instruments of revenge when familial conflicts arise. The goal of the law is to offer protection, but when it inadvertently victimizes young individuals, the very conception of justice becomes distorted.
Conclusion and Future Steps
The recent observations by the Supreme Court indicate a pathway toward recognizing and addressing the complexities surrounding adolescent relationships. The push for a ‘Romeo-Juliet’ exception underscores the necessity for a legal framework that accommodates the realities of youth while ensuring protection against genuine exploitation.
As discussions evolve, the government’s response will be pivotal in shaping the future of the POCSO Act. A careful evaluation of the recommendations, coupled with empirical evidence and public sentiment, will be crucial in drafting amendments that can adequately protect minors while respecting their rights to form consensual relationships.
If enacted, the proposed ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause could serve as a landmark adjustment to existing frameworks, marking a significant shift in how India approaches adolescent relationships within the context of child protection laws.