Author: Shruti Kumari Pandey, Bharati Vidyapeeth University new law college, Pune
ABSTRACT
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012 was hailed as a turning point in Indian criminal law, moving from a framework that was gender-biased to one that was child-centric and gender-neutral. But more than ten years later, the “face” of POCSO law is drastically changing. This article examines how the law is changing, emphasizing the conflict between stringent legal requirements and the realities of teenage love relationships. It looks at the difficulties of required reporting, the growing discussion over the age of consent, and the judiciary’s transition from a literal reading of the law to a more nuanced, “equitable” approach.
TO THE POINT
The “Best Interests of the Child” principle forms the foundation of POCSO jurisprudence. Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO, in contrast to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), establish a reverse burden of proof in which the accused is presumed guilty until and until proven innocent. Although this was intended to safeguard vulnerable victims, the evolving legal landscape now faces:
The criminalization of adolescent love that is consensual.
The “softening” of obligatory sentencing by judges in particular situations.
Incorporating trauma-informed trial practices to stop further victimization.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
One must negotiate particular legal principles in order to comprehend the present shifts:
Presumptive Guilt: POCSO transfer the burden of proof to the defendant after the prosecution establishes the fundamental facts, in contrast to the conventional Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, nec qui negat (the burden of proof is upon him who affirms.)
Age of Discernment: Despite the statutory age of consent being 18, a rising legal idea question whether a youngster between the ages of 16 and 18 can understand the implications of their acts.
Mandatory Reporting (section 19): A clause that requires anybody who knows of an offense to notify it or risk criminal prosecution is highly contentious in the medical and educational fields.
In Camera Proceeding: Private trials are held to protect the child’s identify and dignity.
THE PROOF: STATISTICAL AND SOCIAL REALITIES
Conviction rates are still low in many jurisdictions despite an increase in reporting, according to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).
“Romantic cases” in which the “victim” and “offender” had a consensual relationship make up a sizable portion of “Special Court” cases. The high percentage of acquittals in these situations, which frequently occur when the victim becomes hostile (refuses to testify against the accused) as an adult, is the “proof” of the law’s progression. This has compelled the judiciary to review whether a “one-size-fits-all” disciplinary strategy is beneficial for the child’s future.
CASE LAWS: THE JUDICIAL COMPASS
The changing faces of POCSO is best reflection in the rulings of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017)
The Supreme Court struck down the exception to Section 375 of the IPC, which allowed marital sex with a minor wife. The Court ruled that the “Best Interests of the Child” must override archaic personal laws, harmonizing the IPC with the spirit of POCSO.
Sabari v. The State (2021)
The Madras High Court observed that the POCSO Act was never intended to criminalize consensual relationships between adolescents. This case highlighted the need for a “justice with mercy” approach, preventing the labeling of young boys as “sex offenders” for peer-to-peer romantic acts.
Vijayalakshmi v. State (2021)
In a landmark observation, the court noted that when a minor girl adamantly stands by her partner, the court cannot ignore the social reality of the situation, leading to a more restorative rather than retributive stance.
P. Dharamaraj v. State (2022)
The courts have begun to quash proceedings in cases where the parties have subsequently married and started a family, recognizing that the “protection” offered by the law should not result in the destruction of a settled family unit.
CONCLUSION
POCSO jurisprudence is shifting from rigid legality to social reality. Although the Act is still a crucial defense against predators, its use in “Romeo and Juliet” situations involving teenagers has shown a statutory loophole. A two-pronged strategy is needed to safeguard the future: upholding a zero-tolerance stance for predatory violence and implementing restorative justice for consenting adolescent activity. A “trauma-informed” legal system that actively protects the child’s holistic development and social integration rather than merely punishing the past is the key to POCSO’s future.
FAQS
Q1: Is the age of consent under POCSO 16 or 18?
Eighteen is the legal age of consent. Any sexual conduct with someone under the age of 18 is illegal under POCSO, regardless of whether the minor “consented.”
Q2: Can a POCSO case be quashed if the victim and accused get married?
In theory, POCSO violations cannot be settled and are therefore non-compoundable. Nonetheless, a number of High Courts have quashed cases in the interest of justice by using their inherent authority under Section 482 of the CrPC (now BNSS), particularly in cases involving happily married spouses.
Q3: What is the punishment for not reporting a POCSO offense?
Failure to report an offense may result in a fine, up to six months in jail, or both under Sections 19 and 21.
Q4: Is POCSO applicable to female offenders?
Indeed. In terms of both the victim and the offender, the POCSO Act is gender-neutral. Sexual assault on a kid is a charge that can be brought against a woman.
