Supreme Court Pushes for 'Romeo-Juliet' Exception in POCSO Act
The Supreme Court of India has made a significant observation regarding the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court has urged the government to consider introducing a 'Romeo-Juliet' exception to prevent the criminalisation of consensual relationships between adolescents.
Judicial Concern Over POCSO Misuse
On January 9, 2026, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh set aside an Allahabad High Court order concerning age determination procedures in a bail matter. During this hearing, the Supreme Court directed the Union Law Secretary to explore measures that would curb the misuse of the POCSO Act.
The court specifically recommended the inclusion of a 'Romeo-Juliet clause' in the legislation. This clause would exempt genuine adolescent relationships from prosecution under the law designed to punish child sexual abuse. Named after the young characters from Shakespeare's famous play, such provisions exist in various forms in countries like the United States.
The Supreme Court noted that while POCSO represents a solemn articulation of justice, its misuse has created what the judges described as a grim societal chasm. This observation highlights growing judicial discomfort with how the law currently treats consensual sexual acts between minors.
The Current Legal Framework
Under the POCSO Act, 2012, a child is defined as any person below the age of 18 years. The law does not recognize a minor's consent to sexual activity. Consequently, any sexual act involving a person under 18 is automatically criminalized, regardless of whether it is consensual or non-exploitative.
The court pointed out that families frequently misuse the Act to oppose relationships between young people. This creates situations where the law meant to protect children becomes what the judgment called a tool for exacting revenge.
Demand for Legal Reform
The push to amend the POCSO Act is not entirely new, but it has gained momentum through a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court. This PIL addresses protections and safeguards for women in sexual offence prosecutions.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, serving as amicus curiae in this matter, has advocated for either reading down the age of consent or introducing specific exceptions. In her written submissions filed last year, Jaising argued that the current blanket criminalisation violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
She contended that adolescents between 16 and 18 years possess what she called evolving capacity to make decisions regarding their sexual autonomy. Citing the mature minor doctrine from common law, Jaising maintained that treating all individuals under 18 as incapable of consent ignores scientific reality and biological development.
Jaising proposed a close-in-age exception. This legal mechanism would ensure that if both parties are adolescents and the act is consensual, it would not be treated as an offence. For example, a relationship between a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old would fall under this exception.
Government's Opposition to Changes
The Union government has consistently opposed any reduction in the age of consent or the introduction of legislative exceptions. In its submissions before the court, the government argued that the age of 18 represents a deliberate, well-considered legislative choice aimed at creating a non-negotiable protective shield for children.
According to the government, minors lack both legal and developmental capacity to provide meaningful consent. The government maintains that a strict liability framework where consent is irrelevant remains necessary because children are vulnerable to manipulation and coercion by adults in positions of trust.
The government expressed concern that introducing exceptions or lowering the age of consent could create loopholes for child abuse and trafficking under the guise of consensual relationships. Since the Act was enacted specifically to address child abuse, diluting the age threshold would reintroduce the very problem the law sought to solve.
In 2023, the Law Commission of India also advised against lowering the age of consent to 16. However, it did acknowledge the issue and suggested introducing guided judicial discretion in sentencing for cases involving tacit approval from children aged 16 to 18, rather than implementing a full statutory exception.
What the Data Reveals
Judicial concerns about POCSO Act misuse find support in empirical data. A study conducted by the Enfold Proactive Health Trust and UNICEF examined cases in Maharashtra, Assam, and West Bengal between 2016 and 2020. The research found that approximately 25% of POCSO cases were romantic in nature, involving consensual relationships between the victim and accused.
The data reveals a troubling pattern where families often misuse the Act to regulate their daughters' autonomy. In many instances, parents file kidnapping and rape charges against young boys their daughters have eloped with, particularly in cases of inter-caste or inter-religious relationships.
Conviction rates in such cases remain low because the victims frequently testify in favor of the accused during trial proceedings. This situation highlights the disconnect between the law's intent and its practical application.
The criminalisation of adolescent sexuality also carries significant health implications. As Jaising noted in her submissions, the mandatory reporting provision in POCSO forces doctors to report underage pregnancies or sexual activity to police authorities. This fear of prosecution deters adolescents from seeking essential sexual and reproductive health services.
Current Judicial Approaches
Currently, courts across India navigate this grey area through judicial discretion. Various High Courts have, over the years, quashed criminal proceedings in romantic cases, noting that the purpose of the POCSO Act was not to punish teenage love.
However, by the time courts intervene, accused boys have often spent months or even years in custody. Friday's Supreme Court judgment signaled that the criminalisation of adolescent sexuality requires a structural solution rather than just judicial discretion.
The Supreme Court's observation comes at a crucial time when the age of consent has emerged as a significant point of contention in ongoing legal proceedings. As the judgment noted, when a law meant to protect children becomes a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion.
