Author: Hritika Singh at NBT Law College
To The Point
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was passed to create a rigorous and child-centred protective regime aimed at eradicating sexual exploitation, abuse, and trafficking of minors by clearly prioritising their safety and dignity, but in State of U.P. v. Anurudh (2026) the Supreme Court of India raised serious concerns that, notwithstanding its noble purpose, the law has in practice at times been applied in ways that produce outcomes wholly at odds with its intended protective goals, particularly where it has been used to criminalise consensual interactions between adolescents who are close in age or to advance private family agendas instead of addressing actual abuse, a misuse that judges and legal observers have increasingly noted as distorting the statute’s protective mission; Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh observed that in both judicial and investigative practice, the provisions of POCSO are sometimes invoked by families opposed to teenage relationships, with allegations of falsified ages and coercion that transform routine adolescent conduct into grave criminal charges, leading to arrest, detention, prolonged uncertainty, institutionalisation, and enduring stigma for young individuals despite evidence of mutual consent and negligible age gaps that are far removed from the exploitative harms the Act was meant to prevent . In the course of the appeal, the Court also confronted related procedural issues, particularly the extent of bail court jurisdiction and the proper method for ascertaining age, setting aside broad directives by the Allahabad High Court that required mandatory medical age testing at the investigative stage on the ground that a bail court cannot prescribe investigative protocols or conduct “mini-trials,” and reaffirming that age determination should follow the statutory hierarchy under the Juvenile Justice Act beginning with matriculation or equivalent certificates and birth records, with medical tests resorted to only when necessary to safeguard fair trial rights and avoid premature definitive assessments of age at the bail stage. What distinguished the apex court’s ruling was its candid post-script urging the Legislature to examine the possibility of adding a “Romeo-Juliet” clause to the POCSO Act that would carve out a carefully defined exception for genuine consensual adolescent relationships from the rigorous operation of the law, an idea that aligns with close-in-age exemptions recognised in other legal systems and is intended to prevent consensual peer interactions from being automatically treated as serious offences solely because of age technicalities.
Use of Legal Jargon:
POSCO, Jurisdiction, Juvenile Justice Act, Mini-trial.
The Proof
The Court explained that such an amendment would help differentiate cases of true exploitation, which the statute is designed to punish, from instances of normal adolescent development where both parties are close in age and engage in mutual conduct without coercion, thereby reducing unnecessary criminalisation, psychological harm, and collateral damage, and allowing courts and law enforcement to conserve their focus on genuinely predatory and coercive behaviour. The bench went further to recommend that its decision be circulated to the Union Law Secretary with a view to considering legislative measures not only for this “Romeo-Juliet” exception but also for mechanisms to hold accountable those who misuse POCSO, Section 498-A of the IPC, or the Dowry Prohibition Act as instruments of revenge or social control, reflecting the Court’s broader concern about a “grim societal chasm” in which vulnerable children silenced by fear, stigma, and poverty struggle to access justice while those with social, economic, or cultural capital manipulate protective laws to their advantage. By reinvigorating the conversation about how to balance the imperative of safeguarding minors with fairness, proportionality, and respect for adolescent autonomy, the Supreme Court underscored that POCSO must remain a shield for genuine victims and not become a blunt instrument that unduly penalises young people for consensual behaviour, and it cautioned that any future reform must preserve strong safeguards against exploitation while thoughtfully addressing the risk of over-criminalisation in consensual contexts.
Abstract
The “Romeo and Juliet” clause takes inspiration from Shakespeare’s famous tragedy about teenage lovers kept apart by family feuds. Its purpose is simple: to prevent consensual relationships between young people from being treated as sexual assault cases. Specifically, it protects teens close in age—with a maximum gap of three years—recognizing that criminal charges shouldn’t automatically apply to peer relationships.
In India, this issue became especially relevant after the POCSO Act raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 years, aligning with UN child protection standards. While well-intentioned, this change created unintended consequences. Now, even consensual relationships between teens just one year apart can lead to criminal charges. Often, these cases arise from parental disapproval rather than actual exploitation, flooding courts with lawsuits that frequently end in acquittals.
Introducing this exception would refocus the justice system. Instead of punishing normal adolescent relationships, courts could prioritize genuine cases of exploitation and abuse. Interestingly, early drafts of the POCSO Bill did acknowledge consensual teen relationships above age 16, but this provision was later removed—leaving a gap that the Romeo-Juliet clause aims to fill.
For nearly a decade, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has been a cornerstone of India’s legal framework to safeguard minors. However, on-the-ground experiences and data—including findings from NFHS-5 (2019-21)—reveal a complex reality where the law often intersects with the lives of adolescents in consensual, non-exploitative relationships. Currently, the Act does not distinguish between abusive acts and voluntary romantic involvement between teenagers or with young adults. This means that many cases—such as those where adolescent girls elope with partners or become pregnant—are treated as statutory rape under both the IPC and POCSO, despite being rooted in mutual consent.
Research underscores this gap. Studies by the Centre for Child and the Law at NLSIU and others across states like Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Delhi, Karnataka, and Maharashtra found that a significant portion of POCSO cases—ranging from 15% to over 21%—involved “romantic” relationships where the girl acknowledged being in a relationship with the accused. In these instances, victims rarely testified against their partners, leading to high acquittal rates. A study in Mumbai and Delhi noted that out of 231 POCSO cases, 83 pertained to romantic relationships, and acquittal was the common outcome.
For ten years, India’s POCSO Act has served as a vital shield for children, yet it has also created an unintended dilemma in the lives of many teenagers. Ground reports and national data suggest a significant number of cases under this law do not involve predators, but rather adolescents in voluntary romantic relationships. The current framework makes no distinction, treating a consensual relationship between, say, a 17-year-old and her 19-year-old partner the same as a violent assault. This often turns personal choices, like elopement, into criminal cases of statutory rape.
Evidence from multiple states reveals that roughly one in every five POCSO cases falls into this “romantic” category, where the young person involved acknowledges the relationship. In these situations, the so-called “victim” frequently refuses to testify against their partner, resulting in courts largely dismissing these charges. Judges themselves have noted the disconnect. The Madras High Court, for instance, observed that such adolescent attraction is a natural biological process, and lamented that a law designed for protection ends up severely penalizing it, suggesting the need for legal reforms like a “close-in-age” exception.
To fully understand this complex reality, Enfold Proactive Health Trust undertook a detailed study, examining over 1,700 court judgments from three states. The research aimed to move beyond numbers and explore the human stories behind these cases: How do these young couples enter the legal system? Who files the complaints? Most importantly, how do the adolescents themselves navigate the courtroom, and how do judges reconcile a strict law with the nuanced reality of growing up? This investigation seeks to bring evidence to a pressing question: Is the law, in its current form, protecting teenagers or inadvertently punishing them for their adolescence?
While special courts have shown some leniency in these “romantic” cases compared to other POCSO matters, the criminalisation of such consensual adolescent relationships remains a serious concern. In 2019, the Madras High Court reflected that attraction among minors or with those slightly older is a natural part of growing up, yet the law imposes severe penalties on these relationships. The court suggested revisiting the age of consent and introducing close-in-age exceptions.
To build an evidence-based understanding of how the POCSO Act is applied in these contexts, Enfold Proactive Health Trust analysed 1,715 judgments from special courts in Assam, Maharashtra, and West Bengal (2016–2020) where a romantic relationship was explicitly noted. Conducted between May 2021 and April 2022, the study combined quantitative and qualitative methods to explore how such cases enter the justice system, who reports them, the profiles of those involved, the charges applied, and how victim testimony influences case outcomes. It also examines the varying approaches of courts, especially their interpretation of “consent” when the involved individuals are minors.
For the purpose of this report, a case is considered “romantic” when the young girl at the center of the POCSO case, her family, or the court itself acknowledges a consensual relationship. Specifically, this definition applies if:
The girl clearly states she was in love with the accused, consented to a relationship, or willingly entered into marriage.
Her family members or other witnesses for the prosecution confirm she was in a romantic relationship at the time.
The Special Court, in its judgment, observes that the relationship was a consensual “love affair.”
To ensure clarity and focus, some cases were intentionally excluded. For instance, situations involving elopement or marriage were only included if the court documents explicitly described the relationship as romantic. Cases were also excluded if the claim of a romantic relationship came solely from the accused or their lawyer, without any supporting acknowledgment from the girl, her family, or the court. Furthermore, cases where the primary accused was a minor and was being tried separately under juvenile justice laws were not part of this analysis.
Conclusion
Throughout this research, a clear pattern emerged: in every single one of these identified “romantic” cases, the person bringing the complaint was a girl. Therefore, in this report, we refer to them simply as “the girl” to reflect this reality and to humanize the discussion, except when directly quoting legal terms like “victim” or “prosecutrix” from the court judgments themselves.
The reasons behind filing these police cases were often deeply personal and rooted in relationship conflicts, rather than predatory abuse. Families or the girls themselves sometimes went to the police after a romantic partner refused to marry them, married someone else, or when attempts at a private compromise failed. A misunderstanding could also trigger a formal complaint. In several instances, it was medical professionals who, bound by legal duty, set the legal process in motion. One poignant case from Maharashtra involved a young woman who received full prenatal and delivery care at a private clinic alongside her husband and family, having told doctors she was over 18. Only after the birth did the hospital, following a routine check for patients in that age group, discover her Aadhaar card listed her as a minor. When confronted, the young mother defended her husband, insisting she was an adult and that her documents were mistaken—a claim the court ultimately accepted, leading to an acquittal. This case highlights how the law can intrude upon private lives even when the individuals involved see themselves as a committed family unit.
FAQS
Question 1: Explain the Romeo- Juliet clause proposed by the Supreme Court?
Answer: The “Romeo and Juliet” clause takes inspiration from Shakespeare’s famous tragedy about teenage lovers kept apart by family feuds. Its purpose is simple: to prevent consensual relationships between young people from being treated as sexual assault cases. Specifically, it protects teens close in age—with a maximum gap of three years—recognizing that criminal charges shouldn’t automatically apply to peer relationships.
In India, this issue became especially relevant after the POCSO Act raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 years, aligning with UN child protection standards.
Question 2: What was the reason behind the SC to propose this clause?
Answer: The Court explained that such an amendment would help differentiate cases of true exploitation, which the statute is designed to punish, from instances of normal adolescent development where both parties are close in age and engage in mutual conduct without coercion, thereby reducing unnecessary criminalisation, psychological harm, and collateral damage, and allowing courts and law enforcement to conserve their focus on genuinely predatory and coercive behaviour.
