In a significant observation aimed at curbing the weaponization of child protection laws, the Supreme Court of India has urged the central government to consider introducing a 'Romeo-Juliet clause' to shield genuine romantic relationships between adolescents from the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Judicial Concern Over Law's Misuse
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh, in its ruling dated January 9, 2026, highlighted a disturbing trend. The court noted that the POCSO Act, a law of "solemn articulation" meant to protect children, is often misused by families to oppose relationships between young people. The bench directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Secretary of the Law Ministry, Government of India, to consider initiating steps to curb this menace.
The suggested measures include not only the introduction of an exemption for genuine adolescent relationships but also enacting a mechanism to prosecute individuals who use such laws to settle personal scores. The court drew a parallel, stating that this chasm between access and abuse is mirrored in the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Overturning High Court's Mandatory Age Test Order
The apex court's remarks came while hearing an appeal by the Uttar Pradesh government against a May 29, 2024 order of the Allahabad High Court. The HC had directed police to ensure a medical report determining the victim's age is prepared at the start of investigation in all POCSO cases and produced before the court during bail hearings.
While the Supreme Court did not disturb the bail granted in the specific case, it set aside the High Court's blanket direction for mandatory medical age determination. The bench clarified that determining the age of a victim is a matter for trial, not for the bail stage. A bail court may examine age-related documents but cannot rule on their authenticity.
Constitutional Power vs. Statutory Power
The Supreme Court made a crucial distinction in its judgment, explaining the difference between constitutional and statutory powers. It held that the High Court, in this instance, had erred by exercising a statutory power as if it were a constitutional one. Constitutional powers are self-sustaining and derive from the Constitution itself, whereas statutory powers are limited by the language and intent of the enabling law.
The bench emphasized that one power cannot usurp the ambit of the other. Therefore, the High Court could not mandate a procedural step (medical age test) that was not envisaged by the statute governing POCSO cases.
Procedure for Age Determination
The Supreme Court reiterated the procedure laid down under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It stated that age must first be determined using specified documents like birth certificates. Medical evidence should be resorted to only in the absence of such documents, and not as a routine, mandatory step.
The court acknowledged the critical importance of medical examination in sexual assault cases, calling it "the voice of the body." However, it cautioned that this scientifically sound procedure, meant to gather evidence with dignity, cannot be reduced to a common, matter-of-course step when a legislative framework already exists.
The judgment concluded by underscoring that legislative amendments or judicial directions alone cannot root out the problem of misuse. It called for a deeper societal change driven by discipline, integrity, and courage to prevent laws designed for protection from becoming tools of vendetta.
