Supreme Court asks Centre: Should genuine teenage relationships be exempt from POCSO Act?

The Supreme Court has asked the Union Government to consider protecting genuine teenage relationships from the POCSO Act by introducing a Romeo-Juliet clause, noting repeated misuse of the child protection law by families opposing young couples.

What is the Romeo-Juliet clause?

A Romeo-Juliet clause would exempt genuine adolescent relationships from the stringent provisions of the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act. This means teenage couples in consensual relationships would not automatically face serious criminal charges under the law designed to protect children from sexual abuse.

Why did the Supreme Court suggest this?

The court noted that instances are rife where families misuse POCSO laws to oppose relationships between young people. Parents and relatives often weaponize this law to separate teenage couples they disapprove of, turning consensual relationships into criminal cases.

The bench also highlighted that not only is the age of victims sometimes misrepresented to make incidents fall under stringent POCSO provisions, but numerous instances exist where families use this law in opposition to relationships between young people.

What happens to young couples now?

Currently, any sexual relationship involving a person below 18 years falls under POCSO, regardless of whether both individuals are teenagers in a consensual relationship. This means a 17-year-old boy in a relationship with a 16-year-old girl can face serious criminal charges, even if the relationship is mutual and genuine.

Families opposing such relationships often file POCSO cases to separate the couple, leading to arrest, social stigma, and lengthy legal battles for teenagers whose only "crime" was falling in love.

What did the court say about misuse?

The Supreme Court observed that misuse of these laws reflects an opportunistic and self-centered view that pervades the application of law. It is only through discipline, integrity and courage that these problems can be remedied and rooted out. Any legislative amendment or judicial direction will remain lackluster without this deeper change.

The court referred to several instances where High Courts noted the misuse and misapplication of the POCSO Act, acknowledging this as a widespread problem requiring legislative intervention.

What other protection did the court suggest?

The Supreme Court also recommended enacting a mechanism enabling prosecution of persons who misuse POCSO laws to settle scores. This means families or individuals who file false POCSO cases to harass young couples or settle personal vendettas could themselves face criminal action.

What was the actual case about?

The ruling came while examining whether bail courts can order medical age determination tests for victims in POCSO cases. The court set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment that mandated such tests at the beginning of investigation.

The Supreme Court held that determination of age of the victim is a matter of trial and not at the stage of bail. If age is under question, the bail court may examine documents produced to establish age, but cannot enter into the question of whether those documents are correct or not, as that would amount to a mini trial.

What happens next?

The Supreme Court ordered that its judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiating steps to curb this menace. This includes introduction of a Romeo-Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law and enacting mechanisms to prosecute those who misuse these laws to settle scores.

Case details: The State of Uttar Pradesh vs Anurudh & Anr, decided by a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh decided on January 9, 2026