In a significant move, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Union government to consider amending the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, to prevent its widespread misuse against young couples in consensual relationships. The Court's order, dated January 9, 2026, highlights systemic failures and the "weaponisation" of the law, prompting a fresh debate on the need for a legal provision often termed a 'Romeo-Juliet' clause.
The Core Problem: Criminalising Typical Adolescent Behaviour
The POCSO Act, designed as a robust shield to protect minors from sexual abuse, currently carries stringent penal provisions with no exceptions for age proximity. This means that if two individuals in a romantic relationship are even a day short of 18, their consensual conduct can attract severe criminal charges. Legal experts and child rights advocates have long argued that this leads to the over-criminalisation of developmentally typical adolescent behaviour, treating young love as a heinous crime.
The Supreme Court observed that the law is frequently misapplied, with age often misrepresented to bring cases under POCSO. Families opposed to relationships misuse the Act to harass and separate young couples. This judicial process, once initiated, inflicts serious and lasting damage on the adolescents involved, even if they are eventually acquitted.
What is a 'Romeo-Juliet' Clause?
A 'Romeo-Juliet' clause, inspired by Shakespeare's teenage lovers, is a legal provision adopted in jurisdictions like the United States and parts of Europe. Its purpose is to decriminalise consensual sexual activity between adolescents who are close in age, without lowering the general age of consent. For instance, it could protect a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old in a relationship from prosecution, even though one or both are technically minors.
"At its core, the idea is to craft a law that is attentive to context and responsive to the lived realities of adolescence," notes the opinion piece by Pupul Dutta Prasad, an IPS officer and Professor of Practice at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, published on January 12, 2026. The clause aims to preserve POCSO's power to punish genuine predators while preventing its use as a tool for over-criminalisation.
Broader Questions and Legal Dilemmas
The Supreme Court's suggestion goes beyond the clause. It has also proposed creating a mechanism within POCSO to prosecute those who misuse the Act to settle personal scores. However, legal scholars point out that filing false cases is already punishable under Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The debate also extends to cases where the law is applied routinely, not maliciously. Currently, even affectionate acts like hugging between consenting 17-year-olds can lead to an FIR under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. This raises a fundamental question: should all such cases be handled through the harsh criminal justice system, or are non-penal, restorative responses more appropriate?
Furthermore, a simple age-based exemption creates its own grey areas. If relationships between 16-18-year-olds are exempted, what about those just below this threshold? The law would then draw an arbitrary new line, failing to address the underlying complexity of adolescent capacity to consent.
The Way Forward: Nuance Over Rigidity
Experts argue for distinguishing between crimes that are inherently wrong (mala in se), like violence, and those that are wrong only because the law prohibits them (mala prohibita). Consensual intimacy between adolescents often falls into the latter category—it is criminalised solely based on age, not inherent wrongfulness.
Adolescence is a transitional period, and young people gradually acquire the capacity for romantic consent. This reality does not fit neatly into sharp legal cut-offs. The Supreme Court's intervention is a clear call for the Indian legal framework to incorporate this necessary nuance, balancing child protection with the prevention of life-altering injustice against young couples.
