ABSTRACT
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was enacted for safeguarding children from sexual exploitation and abuse through a comprehensive legal framework. By defining child as a person below eighteen years of age and rendering their consent legally irrelevant thus the Act uses a strict protective approach for safeguarding child from sexual offences However, its application has generated significant legal and social concerns in matters related to consensual adolescent romantic relationships where such cases frequently result in criminal prosecution despite the absence of actual intent of sexual exploitation, Assault, or predatory intent, thereby creating a tension between the objectives of child protection and the autonomy of adolescents. The study further explores constitutional provisions relating to autonomy, dignity, and equality while assessing the adequacy of the existing legal framework in accommodating contemporary social realities. The paper argues that neither absolute criminalisation nor unrestricted recognition of adolescent relationships provides a satisfactory solution to the issue. It concludes by advocating a balanced and well-structured legal approach that preserves the protective objective of the POCSO Act while simultaneously acknowledging adolescent consent and autonomy.
KEYWORDS
POCSO Act, Adolescent Relationships, Age of Consent, Child Protection, Adolescent Autonomy, Judicial Interpretation.
INTRODUCTION
The Protection of Children against Sexual offences Act, 2012[1] was introduced with the objective of safeguarding and prevention of Children from sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual exploitation and criminalise child pornography. The legislation provided with an comprehensive framework to address offences against minors and ensure Protection of children with child friendly procedures and strict punishment. As per section 2(d) [2]of the act “child means any person below the age of eighteen years”[3] defines who can be considered a child under the act now as per the act consent of a child is legally irrelevant meaning any sexual activity involving a person below the age of eighteen years can lead to criminal liability irrespective of consensual status of relationship or its voluntariness as a consequence several cases involving consenting adolescent couples have been prosecuted under the act which is orginally enacted to combat sexual exploitation and abuse.
While objective is widely appreciated and acknowledged , its practice and application has caused significant legal, moral and social debate regarding the age of consent with contemporary times and cases regarding consensual romantic relationship has arise before the court numerous time and with increasing number of such cases raised important questions and issues regarding child protection and autonomy. Courts across India have frequently gave conflicting and conciding judgement and rationale for this issue where question was not regarding predatory nature of offence and act but rather a romantic relationship between two individual of close age. In many instances criminal proceedings were conducted on objections by parents and guardians as a underhand tactics rather than serving justice and more of retributive in nature. Thus questions have raised around rigidness of the act which may cause criminalisation of adolescent behaviour which is completely outside of purview of this act.
Against this backdrop, this paper will analyse the condition and treatment of These consensual romantic relationships by the act and various judicial precedents evaluating arguments surrounding such relationships as an exception under the eyes of law furthermore paper will also analyse the framework and policies for the same and are they adequate in addressing this challenge and harmonise the child protection and Autonomy at the same time.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present study adopts a doctrinal method of legal research. Research is primarily based on examination of statutory provisions, judicial decisions, parliamentary materials and committee reports along with secondary legal resources on the issue of Adolescent Romantic relationships and POCSO Act. Primary sources that were utilised include Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012[4], relevant constitutional provisions, judicial precedents, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Bill, 2011[5], and the 240th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee[6]. Secondary sources such as the Law Commission of India Report No. 283[7], journal articles, and academic literature were also referred. The study uses an analytical and critical approach to understand and evaluate the legal grey zone of teenage romantic relationship and consensual sexual act in conflict with legislation and curate how a balance can be created between the Autonomy and protection of Child with various parameters. Particular emphasis has been placed on examining and understanding judicial interpretation and acknowledgement of these cases and how they handle and respond to this legal Grey zone with the growing approach of courts towards consensual adolescent relationships. The research further looks and see the problem with a constitutional principles lens relating to autonomy, dignity, liberty, and equality while evaluating whether the existing legal framework is enough to handle the contemporary social realities. Through a comparative evaluation of legislative intent, judicial reasoning, and policy considerations, the study seeks to identify existing legal challenges and explore possible reforms capable of balancing adolescent autonomy with the protective purpose of the legislation.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As per the Report number 283 of Law commission of India on “Age of Consent Under the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2018” [8] That this issue of romantic relationships in tussle with the act is a common occurrence in several High Courts many a times Judges cannot divert from plain language of statute which leads to conviction of accused who had consensual sexual activity with a minor girl but few courts also gave liberal interpretation stating act’s objective is not to punish adolescent boys for consensual sexual relationship with minor girls one common trend was also observed that High Courts Try to grant bail to the accused in such cases but trials court refrain from granting bails due to underlying gravity of offence this lead to High Courts being Flooded by appeal for bail application and writs to quash FIRs. Courts have laid down certain parameters to decide whether Bail should be granted or not such as age of the victim and accused, their comparative age, were they at age of innocence, familial relationship between them, conduct of accused after alleged act, comparative social standing of the parties, any charges of witnesses being harassed/intimidated, did the act involved threat, intimidation or violence and whether there appears to be tacit approval in fact on part of the victim, though not consent in law.
METHOD
The paper will examine legal framework along with Judicial approach in adolescent consensual relationship and based on it try to understand how can Autonomy and Protection be balanced with neither defeating the other.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
POCSO act[9] under section 2(d)[10] defined who can be a child under this purview of legislation The reason for choosing eighteen years of age as a Major can be stemmed from the Original legislation The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Bill, 2011[11] which wanted to keep a uniform age of consent throughout the nation and avoid keeping age of consent distinct on case to case basis however 240th Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development on the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Bill, 2011[12] where initially committee argued that with emerging social reality exposure and awareness to adolescent youth should not be overlooked and it may lead to criminalization of consensual intercourse by children between ages of 16 to 18 years in future but ultimately after looking at other legislation like Indian Contract Act[13], Indian Majority Act,1875[14] and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2000 [15]also defined the Child as a person below the age of 18 years Committee agreed with the original Bill. Another reason to keep definition of Child as Under 18 years can also be traced from adherence to International standards where majority of Countries as United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989[16] which was ratified by India in 1992.
As per section 3[17] of the Act defines offence of Penetrative Sexual assault which Criminalizes various forms of sexual penetration involving a child and holds consent legally irrelevant now in case of consenting adolescents two scenarios are possible (i) A minor and A Close Age major this scenario is classic case of Such relationships where there can be clear distinction of Victim and Accused as per the act now, (ii) A minor and A close age Minor Now the legal dilemma starts who is the victim here? And since both parties are minor and adolescent which party is accused and can both be considered victim here? This is where traditional Victim offender framework fails.
Section 7[18] defines sexual assault and which are non-penetrative sexual acts in nature committed with sexual intent now broad scope and application of the provision has lead to concerns regarding the criminalisation of adolescent behaviour that may not necessarily involve exploitation or abuse and simply just an act of affection or love but since irrespective of consent here these acts often attract criminal liability and it’s wide applicability can result into unfair penalisation Finally, section 19[19] for mandatory reporting of offences under the Act which means if Any person has knowledge of the commission of an offence is required to report it to the authorities and this exactly became the core reason by consensual relations lead towards Criminal Courts most of such cases are reported by parents, guardians, educational institutions, or medical practitioners, resulting in criminal proceedings despite existence of an actual criminal intent.
JUDICIAL APPROACH
We will now look at Judicial Reasoning and understanding regarding this issue through these cases.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Anurudh(2026)[20]: In this case the Honourable Supreme Court of India acknowledged the misuse of POCSO in Romeo Juliet cases or Adolescent consensual relationship however the apex court also noted that absolute criminalisation of Consensual adolescent relationship is Rigid and an alteration in the legislation is needed with contemporary time and bench urged towards the parliament to create or enact a exception for such close age consensual relationship as an exemption to decriminalize such relationship. This shows that judiciary also advocates for amendment in a decade old law and gives a primacy to individual autonomy but also highlighted one important dimension the use of Act to extract revenge by parents and false framing of charges to accomplish the same which is clearly an objective of said legislation.
Sabarinathan v. Inspector of Police(2019)[21]: This Madras High Court Judgement is considered a landmark ruling for adolescent consensual relationship where court overturned the conviction of ten years rigorous imprisonment and highlighted that it was “unintended criminalisation” of teenage consensual teenage love and during the proceedings court also practised strict scrutiny noting that inconsistency in prosecution evidence and testimonies which gave benefit of doubt to accused also observed that such kinds of relationships are mutually innocent and biologically attracted due To Puberty and Hormonal changes and hence these relationship should not be equated and assumed to be predatory crimes which the legislation wants to penalize and Court also suggested that the age of consent shall be reduced from 18 years to 16 years to avoid such instances. It is safe to conclude Court’s approach for the matter was based on values of equity, Justice and Good Conscience along with this they interpreted the adolescent Relationship distinguishing it from Offence Finally Court reiterated need to reduce age of consent.
Vijayalakshmi And Another v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police And Another(2021)[22]: Another case of High Court of Madras where case against accused was quashed by the court on the ground that objective of POCSO was never to criminalise consensual adolescent relationships they reached this conclusion after examining neurological and biosocial development of adolescents and Held that treating natural teenage love affairs as a criminal offence and strictly penalising it is unjustifiable also court applied test of supreme court in this matter examining whether the offence is between two Families or against public Interest and Society? And categorised it as a conflict between two parties not overriding any public interest and as per Victim’s testimony it was genuine love affair and continuation of proceeding was not beneficial for either party this shows that teenage love affairs were not to be penalised under the act and if they are not harming public at large matters can be discharged.
CONSENT AND AUTONOMY
The Consent and Autonomy of the adolescents has to balance with the protection of Children against predatory sexual offences, At one hand we have Article 21 of Constitution of India[23] which talks about Life and liberty now adolescents are also minors but age restrictions cannot hamper one’s fundamental right certainly it is duty of state to ensure that dignity and respect is given to consent of minors and freedom to exercise this consent the paper is not arguing for a boundless and absolute overriding effect but at least non criminalisation of natural sexual acts arising out of the love and consent of parties and Article 14 of Constitution of India [24]talks about equality before law and equal protection of laws now we have to oversee that state cannot put a consent of a 10 year old and 17 year on same pedestal while doing so great legal grievance can arise it has to be ensured that law treats with equity again argument is not that 17 years old child consent devoid a person from liability factual matrix of each case has to be evaluated along with the evidences while both cases are child under the act but decisional capacity, maturity and understanding creates the difference it is also equally unfair to enact a over flexible provision can lead to escape of offence and leaves room for unethical practice so a balanced approach has to be maintained.
Furthermore, the concept of evolving capacities of children has gained increasing recognition in contemporary legal and human rights discussions. Adolescents between sixteen and eighteen years of age often possess a greater and better degree of emotional maturity, understanding, and decision-making ability than younger children. While this maturity cannot be presumed in every case automatically or as universally equally developed for all cases but a complete ignorance for adolescent autonomy may cause unintended consequences, which include the penalisation of relationships that are in reality are just teenage innocence or biological attraction and curiosity. Another aspect is this can seriously affect the future of an adolescent accused if convicted or proceedings are dragged for years leading up to societal taboo or abolishment of the accused also not to mention the cost of litigation and stress on the young mind that can cause irreparable harm so law has to be considerate of such aspects also.
SUGGESTIONS
The increasing number of cases of teenage love affairs as Criminal offences highlights the need for a more nuanced and refined legal framework which draws a clear line of distinction between Consensual Adolescent Sexual relationships and Sexual assault children balancing protection and autonomy. In light of this Protective objective of the act should remain absolute but few necessary amendments are also need of the hour.
One possible reform is introduction of provision or “exception” which exempts “Romeo-Juliet” cases but it should not absolutely remove all adolescent relation from the scope of the Act but only consensual adolescent relationship and should be limited and Reasonable in approach. This exception can evoke when both are parties are at least 16 years old or above a specific age which maybe determined by legislation after thorough research on biological and social aspects of adolescence next, a close age gap between the individual should exist otherwise it will give gateway to escape from liability arising due to sexual offences lastly, Basic tenets of a free and valid consent should exist which are no undue influence, coercion, manipulation or abuse of authority. Further, courts can be encouraged to approach such cases with sensitive and careful approach since these relationships and cases are highly prone to criminalise innocence or acquittal of a potential offender either extremes of the spectrum hence, hearings and proceedings should not be rushed with proper weights to evidence and factual circumstances be granted and Questions like whether it is truly an offence which can cause serious injury to public interest? Or a retributive intent lies behind the prosecution? Also needs to be evaluated by court other than this examination of adolescent’s mental capability and decision making skill should also be assessed leading to contextual sensitive approach.
CONCLUSION
The analysis undertaken in this paper demonstrates that the conflict between the POCSO Act [25]and consensual adolescent relationships is concerning and contemporary legal issue which is intensifying at a great pace even before the Legislation was enacted cases of adolescent consensual relationships existed among adolescents aged sixteen to eighteen years however parliament still kept a uniform Age Bracket for consent although approach is not incorrect but some regard towards such cases should have been taken nonetheless courts tried to handle these situations for a long time but each having a different approach some liberal enough to consider while some strictly aligning with legislative wordings. After reviewing landmarks judgement paper observes that court distinguish between actual criminal intent and Normal Romantic relationship and remaining within the object of the act which is not to punish actual relationships arising out of innocence, if we start to do so than we might need to rethink about our Constitutional values.
Also many a times cases are lodged by parents to fulfil their retributive and vengeful tendencies if we equate these relationship as a offence under the act then it will serve as a tool for exploitation and vengeance rather than protection of children from sexual offences but at the same time study also finds that complete recognition of these relationships as an absolute exception can be drastic too and would be inconsistent with the object of the Act and may expose children to exploitation and hence issue can not be resolved through either unrestricted autonomy or absolute criminalisation and a balanced middle path is required. The core challenge is distinguishing consensual adolescent relationships from exploitative conduct without weakening or destroying the safeguards available to children under the act. Accordingly, a legal framework capable of accommodating both protection and autonomy appears to be the most suitable and favourable path Such an approach would protect and preserve the core objective of the POCSO Act while addressing the practical reality and contemporary challenge of autonomy of adolescent.
BY ARNAV SHRIVASTAVA,
SCHOOL OF LAW, BENNETT UNIVERSITY
[1] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No. 32, Acts of Parliament, 2012 (India).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Bill, 2011, Bills of Parliament, 2011 (India).
[6] Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, 240th Report on the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Bill, 2011 (2011) (India).
[7] Law Commission of India, Report No. 283: Age of Consent Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (2023) (India).
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, § 2(d), No. 32, Acts of Parliament, 2012 (India).
[11] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Bill, 2011, Bills of Parliament, 2011 (India), supra note 5.
[12] Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee, supra note 6.
[13] Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
[14] Indian Majority Act, 1875, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1875 (India).
[15] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, No. 56, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
[16] United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
[17] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, § 3, No. 32, Acts of Parliament, 2012 (India).
[18] Id. At § 7.
[19] Id. At § 19.
[20] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40.
[21] Sabari @ Sabarinathan @ Sabarivasan v. Inspector of Police, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 18850
[22] Vijayalakshmi v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 317.
[23] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[24] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[25] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No. 32, Acts of Parliament, 2012 (India).