Supreme Court Flags ‘Romeo-Juliet’ Clause in POCSO: Why the Age of Consent Debate Is Back

The Supreme Court has once again reopened a long-simmering debate around the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. While hearing a bail matter last week, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh urged the Union government to consider steps to prevent the misuse of the law — including the possible introduction of a “Romeo-Juliet clause” to protect consensual relationships between adolescents close in age. The observation reflects growing judicial unease with how a law meant to shield children from sexual abuse is increasingly being used to criminalise teenage relationships.

What the Supreme Court said — and why it matters

Setting aside an Allahabad High Court order on age determination in a bail case, the Supreme Court described POCSO as a “solemn articulation of justice” whose misuse has created a “grim societal chasm”. The court flagged how families often invoke the Act to oppose consensual relationships between adolescents, particularly when these cut across caste, religion or social boundaries.

By suggesting a Romeo-Juliet clause — a legal exemption recognised in several countries — the court signalled that not all sexual activity involving minors is predatory or exploitative. Such clauses typically protect consensual sexual activity between teenagers who are close in age, exempting them from prosecution for statutory rape.

How POCSO currently treats consent

Under POCSO, a “child” is defined as anyone below 18 years of age. The law does not recognise consent from a minor, meaning any sexual activity involving a person under 18 is automatically criminal, regardless of context or mutuality.

This strict-liability framework was deliberately chosen to protect children from abuse by adults in positions of power. However, courts have increasingly pointed out that the law makes no distinction between sexual exploitation and consensual adolescent relationships — lumping both into the same category of serious criminal offence.

A long-standing demand for reform

The Supreme Court’s observation comes amid a pending public interest litigation that directly challenges the blanket criminalisation of adolescent sexuality. Senior Advocate “Indira Jaising”, assisting the court as amicus curiae, has argued for either reading down the age of consent or introducing statutory exceptions.

In her submissions, Jaising has contended that adolescents aged 16–18 possess “evolving capacity” and autonomy protected under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Drawing on the “mature minor” doctrine from common law, she argued that treating all under-18s as incapable of consent ignores biological and social realities, including the onset of puberty.

The case for a ‘close-in-age’ exception

A key reform proposed is a “close-in-age” or Romeo-Juliet exception. Under such a framework, consensual relationships between adolescents — say a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old — would not trigger criminal liability under POCSO.

Supporters argue this would prevent the incarceration of young boys in cases where there is no coercion, abuse or power imbalance. It would also reduce the burden on courts, where such cases often collapse during trial because the “victim” testifies in favour of the accused.

Why the government opposes change

The Union government has consistently defended the current age of consent. In its submissions before the Supreme Court, it has argued that 18 is a “well-considered” threshold designed to create a non-negotiable protective shield for children.

According to the government, minors lack the legal and psychological capacity to give meaningful consent, and any dilution risks opening loopholes for trafficking and abuse. It has maintained that judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis is preferable to statutory dilution.

The “Law Commission of India” echoed this cautious approach in 2023. While it advised against lowering the age of consent to 16, it acknowledged the problem and suggested greater sentencing discretion in cases involving tacit consent among 16–18-year-olds.

What the data reveals about misuse

Empirical evidence strengthens the court’s concern. A study by Enfold Proactive Health Trust and UNICEF found that nearly one in four POCSO cases in Maharashtra, Assam and West Bengal between 2016 and 2020 involved consensual “romantic” relationships.

In many such cases, parents filed kidnapping or rape charges against adolescent boys after daughters eloped or entered relationships disapproved by the family. Conviction rates in these cases remain low, underscoring the mismatch between the law’s intent and its application.

Health, autonomy and unintended consequences

The criminalisation of adolescent sexuality also has public health implications. POCSO’s mandatory reporting requirement compels doctors to inform police about underage pregnancies or sexual activity. Fear of prosecution often deters adolescents from seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare, increasing medical and social risks.

Why courts say discretion is not enough

High Courts across India have occasionally quashed POCSO proceedings in consensual cases, stressing that the law was never meant to punish teenage love. But such relief usually comes after prolonged incarceration or trial — damage that cannot be undone.

By calling for structural reform, the Supreme Court has underlined a larger concern: when a law designed to protect children becomes a tool for social control or familial revenge, it risks inverting the very idea of justice. Whether Parliament responds with a legislative fix now remains the key question.