Introduction
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was enacted with the primary objective of safeguarding children from sexual abuse and exploitation.[1] By fixing the age of consent at eighteen years and criminalising all sexual acts involving minors, the Act adopts a strict liability approach to child protection.
While this framework has played a crucial role in addressing serious sexual offences against children, its rigid application has increasingly raised concerns regarding the criminalisation of consensual romantic relationships between adolescents.[2]
In January 2026, the Supreme Court of India, while deciding a case under the POCSO Act, made significant observations urging the Union Government to consider introducing a “Romeo–Juliet clause” to prevent misuse of the statute in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents close in age.[3] This judicial suggestion has reignited an important debate on adolescent autonomy, proportionality in criminal law, and the balance between protection and punishment.
This article critically examines the Supreme Court’s call for a Romeo–Juliet clause in the POCSO Act, analyses the legal and constitutional implications of such a reform, and evaluates whether the introduction of such an exception would dilute child protection or strengthen the fairness of the criminal justice system.
Understanding the POCSO Act and Its Rigid Framework
The POCSO Act defines a “child” as any person below the age of eighteen years and criminalises a wide range of sexual offences, irrespective of the consent of the minor.[4] The rationale behind this approach lies in the presumption that minors lack the maturity and capacity to provide informed consent to sexual activity. Consequently, consent is rendered legally irrelevant under the Act.
However, in practice, this rigid framework has resulted in the prosecution of adolescents involved in consensual romantic relationships. In many cases, both parties are minors or are close in age, yet one partner is labelled as an “accused” while the other is treated as a “victim” under the law. Such cases frequently arise from parental disapproval of relationships, particularly those crossing caste, religious, or socio-economic boundaries.[5]
Over time, High Courts across India have taken judicial notice of this pattern, observing that the POCSO Act is often invoked as a tool to control adolescent choice rather than to address genuine instances of sexual abuse.[6]
The Supreme Court’s 2026 Observation: A Turning Point
In January 2026, while hearing an appeal concerning procedural directions issued by a High Court in a POCSO bail matter, the Supreme Court addressed the broader issue of misuse of the Act. Although the primary issue before the Court related to age determination at the bail stage, the bench went on to highlight the recurring problem of consensual adolescent relationships being criminalised under POCSO.
The Court urged the Union Government to consider introducing a Romeo–Juliet clause — a statutory exception that would exempt consensual sexual activity between adolescents who are close in age from criminal liability. Importantly, the Court refrained from striking down any provision of the Act and instead made a policy recommendation, respecting the legislative domain of Parliament.
This observation is significant because it reflects judicial acknowledgment of the need to harmonise child protection laws with principles of proportionality and fairness.
What Is a Romeo–Juliet Clause?
A Romeo–Juliet clause, also known as a “close-in-age exemption,” is a provision found in the criminal laws of several jurisdictions. It decriminalises consensual sexual activity between minors or between a minor and a young adult, provided the age difference between the parties is within a prescribed limit and the relationship is genuinely consensual.
The objective of such clauses is not to lower the age of consent but to prevent the harsh consequences of criminal law from being imposed on adolescents engaging in consensual relationships as part of their normal emotional and social development.Comparative criminal jurisprudence demonstrates that such exemptions help distinguish exploitative conduct from peer relationships[7]
Arguments Supporting the Introduction of a Romeo–Juliet Clause
1. Preventing Misuse of the Law
One of the strongest arguments in favour of a Romeo–Juliet clause is the documented misuse of the POCSO Act. Numerous cases demonstrate that parents or guardians often file complaints under POCSO to oppose consensual relationships, particularly those perceived as socially unacceptable.
Such misuse undermines the credibility of the law and diverts judicial resources away from genuine cases of child sexual abuse. A narrowly drafted exemption would help ensure that the Act is applied in accordance with its original purpose.
2. Upholding the Principle of Proportionality
Criminal law must adhere to the principle of proportionality, which requires that punishment be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.[8] Subjecting adolescents to severe criminal penalties, including imprisonment and long-term stigma, for consensual relationships is manifestly disproportionate.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that criminal law should not operate in an arbitrary or excessive manner.[9] A Romeo–Juliet clause would align the POCSO Act with this constitutional principle.
3. Recognising Adolescent Autonomy and Constitutional Rights
The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments such as Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India, has recognised the right to privacy, dignity, and personal autonomy as intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution. [10]While children require protection, adolescents are not entirely devoid of agency.
A complete denial of adolescent consent fails to account for their evolving capacities and lived realities. A limited exemption would acknowledge adolescent autonomy without compromising child protection.
Concerns and Counter-Arguments
Despite its potential benefits, the proposal for a Romeo–Juliet clause has attracted criticism.
1. Risk of Diluting Child Protection
Critics argue that introducing exceptions to the POCSO Act may weaken its protective framework and create loopholes that could be exploited by offenders. There is concern that perpetrators may falsely claim consent or manipulate age differences to evade liability.
2. Challenges in Implementation
Determining whether a relationship is truly consensual and verifying age differences can pose practical challenges. Without clear statutory guidelines, law enforcement agencies may struggle to apply the exemption consistently.
These concerns highlight the need for careful legislative drafting rather than outright rejection of the proposal.
Balancing Protection and Fairness: A Constitutional Perspective
From a constitutional standpoint, the absence of a Romeo–Juliet clause raises questions under Articles 14 and 21.[11] Treating consensual adolescent relationships on par with sexual exploitation may result in arbitrary and unequal application of the law.
At the same time, the State has a constitutional obligation to protect children from harm. A narrowly tailored Romeo–Juliet clause, with strict safeguards against coercion and exploitation, can reconcile these competing interests and enhance the legitimacy of the POCSO framework.
Recommendations for Reform
If Parliament decides to introduce a Romeo–Juliet clause, certain safeguards are essential:
- A limited and clearly defined age gap between the parties
- Explicit exclusion of cases involving coercion, manipulation, or abuse of authority
- Judicial oversight to assess the voluntariness of the relationship
- Sensitisation of police and child welfare authorities
Such measures would ensure that the exemption serves its intended purpose without compromising child safety.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s call for the introduction of a Romeo–Juliet clause in the POCSO Act marks an important step towards a more nuanced and humane approach to child protection law in India. While the objective of safeguarding children must remain paramount, the criminal justice system cannot ignore the realities of consensual adolescent relationships and the harm caused by over-criminalisation.
A carefully crafted Romeo–Juliet clause, supported by robust safeguards, can strike a constitutionally sound balance between protection and proportionality. Rather than diluting the POCSO Act, such reform has the potential to strengthen its effectiveness, credibility, and alignment with constitutional values.
[1]The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.
https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A2012-32.pdf
[2]Independent Thought v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176333001
[3]Supreme Court of India, observations on misuse of POCSO in consensual adolescent relationships (January 2026).
[4]POCSO Act 2012, s 2(d).
[5]Madan Lal v State of Himachal Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 681.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104723896
[6]Sabari v Inspector of Police 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 1340
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62234029
[7]Heather Ellis Cucolo and Michael L. Perlin, ‘Romeo and Juliet Laws: Protecting Adolescents from Sexual Abuse’ (2012) 38 Journal of Psychiatry and Law 533.
[8]Law Commission of India, Report No 262: The Death Penalty (2015).
[9]State of Madhya Pradesh v Baldeo Prasad AIR 1961 SC 293
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1797237
[10]Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676
[11]Constitution of India 1950, arts 14 and 21.
https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI.pdf
Author Bio– Sanchita Rajdev is a law graduate with an interest in criminal law, constitutional law, and legal research.
