SUPREME COURT URGES TO BRING ‘ROMEO-JULIET’ CLAUSE IN POCSO ACT TO SHIELD CONSENSUAL ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS FROM PROSECUTION
INTRODUCTION
Adolescence is a budding period in the life of a human being, marked by profound physical, emotional and psychological developments that are crucial for growth and education, ultimately shaping a well-rounded individual. This formative stage also encompasses experiences such as young love and early sexual awareness, which are natural aspects of adolescent development. In this context, the determination of age assumes critical legal significance, particularly in matters arising under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and the Juvenile Justice Act. Age not only determines the applicability of these statutes but also informs the court’s assessment of maturity, capacity for consent, and the nature of the relationship between the parties involved.
BRIEF FACTS
In the present case, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal @SLP (Crl) 10656 of 2025), decided on 9th January 2026, the Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh addressed the grey area and recognised the need of the Romeo-Juliet Clause. Here, the mother of the alleged victim girl, purportedly aged 12 years, filed a complaint for kidnapping against the Accused boy. In the course of investigation, significant uncertainty and ambiguity emerged with respect to the age of the victim girl, raising serious questions about the jurisdiction of the court and the applicability of the POCSO Act.
In accordance with the prescribed procedure under Section 164-A Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 27 of the POCSO act, for determination of age, the relevant documents considered included birth certificates and school records. Where such records are unavailable or inadequate, the statute provides for medical examination as the determinative method. In the present case, a School Transfer Certificate was produced indicating the date of birth as 11th July, 1997. However, no birth certificate was produced to corroborate the same, rendering the documentary evidence insufficient for conclusive determination of age. Consequently, reliance was placed on the Medical Examination Report, which revealed the age of the girl to be between 18 to 20 years. In light of this finding, the Appeal was allowed, bail was granted and the Accused was accordingly acquitted.
ISSUES OF LAW
The central issue arising from the present case pertains to the misuse of the POCSO Act, a strict liability legislation, by guardians and family members seeking to control or restrict consensual adolescent relationships. The question before the Court is
- whether the rigid age-based threshold under the POCSO Act, which criminalises all sexual activity involving persons below 18 years of age, requires revisitation to account for the grey area of consensual relationships between adolescents who are close in age?
- whether the absence of a statutory exception for such relationships violates the constitutional rights of the adolescents concerned, including the right to dignity, personal liberty and decisional autonomy guaranteed under the Constitution of India?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court, in the present matter, took cognisance of the widespread misuse of the POCSO Act in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships. The Court observed that there have been numerous instances wherein the police have failed to obtain proper age verification reports and trial courts have disregarded scientifically assessed age determinations, thereby allowing falsified records to result in the criminalisation of consensual teenage relationships. The Court held that “…the introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc.”
This systemic failure, the Court noted, strikes at the very purpose of the POCSO Act, which was enacted for the protection of children from sexual exploitation and abuse, not to penalise adolescents engaged in consensual relationships.
In this context, the Supreme Court urged the legislature to consider the incorporation of a ‘Romeo-Juliet Clause’ as a statutory exception to the POCSO Act. Such a clause would acknowledge the existence of consensual teenage relationships between individuals who are close in age, typically within the range of 16 to 18 years and would exclude such relationships from the penal ambit of the Act. The Court drew reference to the discussion in Sabari v. Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2018), wherein the possibility of reducing the age of consent or introducing an exemption for close-age relationships was deliberated upon.
The Court further noted that adolescent sexual health and teenage reproductive behaviour have been subjects of legislative and policy attention, as reflected in the Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health Scheme and have also come before the courts in the context of teenage pregnancies, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. The absence of a nuanced legal framework for such situations, the Court observed, leaves young individuals vulnerable to extreme outcomes, including instances of teenage couples eloping due to social pressure, stigma surrounding inter-caste relationships and the attendant legal complications.
The Court emphasised that subjecting a young couple in a consensual relationship to prolonged legal proceedings effectively amounts to punishment, which stands in direct contradiction to their constitutional rights. A narrowly tailored Romeo-Juliet Clause, the Court held, would serve to reduce the misuse of the POCSO Act while simultaneously upholding its protective mandate and safeguarding the fundamental rights of adolescents.
The Court also drew upon precedents recognising the rights of adolescent partners. In Satish alias Chand v. State of U.P. (criminal misc. 18596 of 2024), the Allahabad High Court laid down four factors to be considered by courts in cases involving adolescent relationships: a careful and individualised examination of the nature and intent of the relationship, due consideration of the victim’s own statement and the exercise of judicial discretion. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Sahil v. State (NCT of Delhi, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12446 highlighted instances where POCSO complaints were filed by the girl’s family solely to obstruct or terminate a romantic relationship underscoring the need for judicial vigilance against such misuse.
Shomdeepta Chanda
Intern at The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
EDITOR’S COMMENTS
The Supreme Court, through its observations in the present case, has sent a clear and unequivocal message to the legislature regarding the urgent need for statutory reform in the domain of adolescent relationships and the POCSO Act. The Court’s call for the introduction of a Romeo-Juliet Clause reflects a considered recognition of the gap between the letter of the law and the realities of adolescent life in contemporary India. While the POCSO Act remains an essential instrument for the protection of children against sexual exploitation, its application must be tempered with nuance and sensitivity to avoid becoming an instrument of oppression against the very individuals it seeks to protect. The incorporation of a carefully defined exception for consensual close-age adolescent relationships would not only reduce the incidence of false and motivated complaints but would also uphold the constitutional values of dignity, personal liberty and decisional autonomy that lie at the heart of the Indian legal System.
Sushila Ram Varma
Advocate & Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various
aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “भारत में कुत्ते के काटने वाले पर: क्या पुलिस पालतू जानवर के मालिक को गिरफ्तार कर सकती है?” can be viewed at the link below:
Leave a Reply