New Delhi: In a landmark observation highlighting the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Union Government to consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet clause” to exempt genuine consensual relationships among adolescents from the stringent provisions of the law. The court’s January 9, 2026, judgment in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 47) underscores a growing concern over the weaponisation of the POCSO Act against young couples in romantic relationships, often driven by familial opposition rather than genuine child protection needs.
The Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh made these recommendations while hearing an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an order of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had granted interim bail in a POCSO case and issued broad directions mandating medical age determination tests for victims at the start of every investigation and during bail proceedings. The Supreme Court set aside these sweeping instructions, ruling that high courts cannot impose mandatory medical age tests as a routine practice in POCSO matters, as it exceeds statutory limits and bail jurisdiction.
However, the apex court used the occasion to address a deeper systemic issue: the repeated misuse and misapplication of the POCSO Act. The judgment notes that courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, Allahabad High Court, Delhi High Court, and Gujarat High Court, have frequently encountered cases where the law is invoked not to safeguard children from sexual abuse but to disrupt or punish consensual romantic relationships between adolescents.
Misuse of POCSO Act: A Systemic Problem
The Supreme Court described the problem as “systemic,” leading to the “weaponisation of the legislation against young couples in consensual relationships.” It pointed out numerous instances where the victim’s age is deliberately misrepresented or falsified to bring the case within the POCSO framework’s harsh penalties. Families opposed to inter-caste, inter-community, or simply unwanted teenage romances often file complaints, resulting in young individuals — typically boys — facing arrest, prolonged trials, and severe consequences despite evidence of mutual affection and minimal age differences.
The court highlighted a “grim societal chasm” in how the law operates. On one side, genuine child survivors of heinous sexual offences remain silenced by fear, poverty, and social stigma, with justice often remaining distant. On the other, privileged families with literacy, social influence, and financial resources manipulate the law to settle personal scores or enforce social norms. This disparity, the Bench observed, mirrors similar misuse seen in provisions like Section 498-A of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The judgment emphasized that when a law of “noble intent” designed to protect vulnerable children is turned into a tool for revenge or control, it inverts the very notion of justice. The court stressed that such recurring lapses involve police, lawyers, and even courts, causing lasting harm to adolescents drawn into the criminal justice system.
What is the Proposed ‘Romeo-Juliet Clause’?
The Romeo-Juliet clause, named after Shakespeare’s tragic teenage lovers, is a legal exemption found in jurisdictions like the United States and parts of Europe. It decriminalises consensual sexual activity between adolescents who are close in age, without lowering the overall age of consent. The clause provides a “close-in-age” exception for statutory rape charges, protecting young people from criminal liability in developmentally typical, non-exploitative romantic situations.
The Supreme Court urged the Centre to explore this mechanism to retain POCSO’s robust child-protection framework while preventing its distortion into a tool of over-criminalisation. The Bench directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to initiate steps against misuse, including the introduction of such a clause and a provision to prosecute those who deliberately abuse POCSO provisions to settle scores.
While noting that false cases are already punishable under Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the court suggested a specific mechanism within POCSO itself for greater deterrence.
Understanding the POCSO Act and Age of Consent in India
Enacted in 2012, the POCSO Act aims to protect children below 18 years from sexual assault, harassment, and pornography. It defines a child as anyone under 18, deems all persons below this age incapable of valid consent, and treats offences as strict liability crimes where consent is irrelevant. Offences are categorised into penetrative and non-penetrative assaults, with aggravated forms carrying punishments from imprisonment to life sentences.
The law is gender-neutral, applies to all genders, and establishes special courts for speedy, in-camera (closed-door) trials, often within a year. It mandates child-friendly procedures, including video-recorded testimonies, protection from hostile questioning, and provisions for compensation and rehabilitation.
Under POCSO, IPC Section 375 (now BNS Section 63), any penetrative sexual act with a person below 18 attracts severe penalties, even in consensual scenarios. Even non-penetrative acts like hugging or physical closeness can trigger FIRs under Section 7.
The age of consent in India remains 18, aligned with POCSO, IPC/BNS, and other laws. The Law Commission in 2023 rejected lowering it but recommended guided judicial discretion in sentencing for consensual cases involving 16-18-year-olds.
Data and Trends Highlighting the Gap
Studies reveal a significant mismatch between legal thresholds and social realities. According to NFHS-4, nearly 39% of Indian girls reported their first sexual experience before 18. Research by Enfold and Project 39A (2016-2020) found that around 25% of POCSO cases involved consensual adolescent relationships rather than exploitation. A growing pattern shows parental opposition driving complaints, turning criminal law into a tool to regulate teenage behaviour.
The Madras High Court in 2021 (Vijayalakshmi vs State) suggested exemptions where age difference does not exceed five years and called for legal literacy on sexual offence consequences among adolescents.
Philosophical Debate: Mala in Se vs Mala Prohibita
The document classifies consensual adolescent intimacy as mala prohibita — wrong only because prohibited by law due to age — unlike mala in se offences involving inherent wrongfulness like violence or exploitation. Adolescence is transitional, where young people gradually develop capacity for consent, making sharp legal cut-offs problematic. Criminalising developmentally typical behaviour risks over-criminalisation, with harmful effects on adolescents.
The Supreme Court’s call reflects a push for nuanced, context-sensitive law that balances child protection with personal liberty and lived realities. While the Romeo-Juliet clause offers a limited solution, broader questions remain about non-penal responses for non-exploitative cases and whether redrawing age lines truly resolves underlying issues.
As India debates these reforms, the judgment serves as a clarion call for legislative introspection to ensure POCSO protects the vulnerable without punishing the innocent or becoming an instrument of social control. The Centre’s response will be closely watched for potential amendments that could redefine justice for adolescents in romantic relationships.
FAQs
1. What is the Romeo-Juliet clause, and why is it named so?
The Romeo-Juliet clause (also called a “close-in-age” or “Romeo and Juliet” exception) is a legal provision found in many countries, such as parts of the United States and Europe. It provides an exemption from statutory rape or sexual offence charges in cases of consensual sexual activity between adolescents who are close in age (typically with a small age gap, like 2–5 years, depending on the jurisdiction).
The name comes from Shakespeare’s famous play Romeo and Juliet, where the teenage protagonists fall in love despite opposition, symbolizing youthful, consensual romance. The clause aims to prevent over-criminalisation of developmentally typical teenage relationships while keeping strong protections against actual exploitation.
2. Why did the Supreme Court of India urge the introduction of a Romeo-Juliet clause in the POCSO Act?
On January 9, 2026, in the case The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 47), a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh highlighted the widespread misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The Court noted that the law, meant to protect children under 18 from sexual abuse, is often “weaponised” by families to disrupt or punish consensual romantic relationships between adolescents (especially when involving inter-caste, inter-community, or opposed teenage romances). Age is sometimes misrepresented, leading to arrests, trials, and long-term harm to young people.
The Supreme Court called this a “systemic” problem and a “menace,” creating a grim divide: genuine victims remain silent due to fear/stigma, while privileged families manipulate the law. It urged the Union Government to consider a Romeo-Juliet clause to exempt genuine consensual adolescent relationships (with minimal age difference) from POCSO’s strict provisions, without lowering the overall age of consent.
3. Does the Romeo-Juliet clause lower the age of consent in India?
No. The proposal does not seek to reduce India’s age of consent, which remains 18 years under the POCSO Act, 2012, and related laws (like Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
Instead, it would create a narrow, conditional exemption for non-exploitative, consensual cases between close-in-age teens. The core child-protection framework of POCSO would stay intact, focusing on preventing abuse while avoiding criminalising normal adolescent behaviour.
4. What kind of cases would the Romeo-Juliet clause potentially cover or exclude?
It would likely apply to genuine, mutual romantic/sexual relationships where:
- Both parties are adolescents (typically teens close to 18).
- The age difference is minimal (e.g., suggestions from courts like Madras High Court have mentioned up to 5 years).
- There is no coercion, exploitation, or power imbalance.
Even non-penetrative acts (like hugging) or consensual intimacy could be decriminalised in such scenarios.
However, it would not cover cases of actual abuse, grooming, significant age gaps, or predatory behaviour. Studies (e.g., from Enfold and Project 39A, 2016–2020) show about 25% of POCSO cases involve consensual teen relationships, and NFHS-4 data indicates many first sexual experiences occur before 18, highlighting the gap between law and reality.
5. Is the Romeo-Juliet clause already law in India, and what happens next?
No, it is not currently part of the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court only recommended that the Centre consider introducing it (along with mechanisms to punish deliberate misuse of POCSO, such as to settle scores).
The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, for necessary action. Any change would require a legislative amendment by Parliament.
The Law Commission (2023) had opposed lowering the age of consent but suggested guided judicial discretion in sentencing for 16–18-year-olds in consensual cases. The Romeo-Juliet clause could offer a more structured solution, but it remains under consideration amid ongoing debates on balancing child protection with adolescent realities.
