Author Introduction – Chetan Hingsley is a third-year B.A. LL.B. student at Vikramajit Singh Sanatan Dharma College (VSSD College), affiliated with Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University (Kanpur University). He has gained valuable judicial and practical exposure through a judicial internship at the Hon’ble Sikkim High Court and internships with advocates practicing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as well as the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). His academic and research interests primarily focus on criminal law, consent jurisprudence, cyber law, and constitutional issues. As a published legal researcher, he regularly writes on contemporary legal developments and critically examines the societal impact of criminal legislation, with an emphasis on balancing legal protection with individual rights.
The Romeo–Juliet Clause Under POCSO: Between Criminalisation and Consent
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was enacted with the noble objective of safeguarding children from sexual abuse, exploitation, and violence. By defining a “child” as any person below the age of eighteen years, the Act adopts a zero tolerance approach towards sexual offences involving minors. However, over the years, the rigid framework of the Act has raised serious concerns particularly when it comes to consensual romantic relationships between adolescents. This tension has brought renewed attention to the idea of a “Romeo–Juliet clause,” a legal exception designed to prevent the criminalisation of consensual relationships between minors close in age.
The debate surrounding the Romeo–Juliet clause is not about diluting child protection laws but about ensuring that criminal law does not unjustly punish young individuals for consensual acts that lack exploitative or coercive elements.
Understanding the Romeo–Juliet Clause
A Romeo–Juliet clause refers to a “close-in-age exception” in sexual offence laws. It shields adolescents who engage in consensual sexual activity with peers of a similar age from criminal prosecution. Such clauses exist in several jurisdictions worldwide, recognising that consensual relationships between teenagers are fundamentally different from acts of sexual abuse or exploitation.
In India, however, the POCSO Act does not recognise consent where the victim is below eighteen years of age. As a result, even consensual relationships between a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old are treated as serious criminal offences, often leading to arrest, prosecution, and long-term social stigma.
The Ground Reality: Misuse and Over-Criminalisation
Judicial records reveal that a significant number of POCSO cases arise from consensual relationships, frequently reported by parents or guardians who disapprove of the relationship. In many cases, the “victim” herself denies any coercion or abuse, yet the law mandates prosecution due to the strict liability framework of POCSO.
This has led to situations where young boys are incarcerated, families are torn apart, and the lives of adolescents are permanently affected despite the absence of any criminal intent or exploitation.
Judicial Recognition of the Problem
Indian courts have repeatedly acknowledged the harsh consequences of the current legal framework.
In Vijayalakshmi v. State 2021, the Madras High Court observed that consensual romantic relationships between adolescents are increasingly being criminalised under POCSO, defeating the very object of the Act. The Court cautioned against the mechanical application of criminal law in such cases.
Similarly, in Sabari v. Inspector of Police 2019, the Madras High Court highlighted that the Act, though well-intentioned, fails to differentiate between “abuse” and “romantic involvement.” The Court recommended legislative reconsideration to address this gap.
Supreme Court’s Intervention and Observations
The issue of criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships under the POCSO Act gained national prominence when the Supreme Court of India urged the Union Government to consider introducing a Romeo–Juliet clause within the statutory framework. The Court observed that the existing law does not provide any mechanism to distinguish between exploitative sexual conduct and consensual relationships between peers who are close in age.
The Court further noted that the automatic invocation of criminal liability in such cases often results in serious injustice, defeating the rehabilitative and protective objectives of child-centric legislation. Emphasising the need for a contextual and realistic approach, the Court remarked that criminal law must be sensitive to social realities, particularly in cases involving adolescents engaging in consensual relationships without any element of coercion or abuse.
These concerns were judicially recognised in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Another, 2026. In this case, a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh took judicial notice of the recurring misuse of the POCSO Act in matters arising from consensual romantic relationships between adolescents. The Court acknowledged that such prosecutions are frequently initiated due to familial or societal disapproval rather than genuine allegations of sexual exploitation, thereby subjecting young individuals to disproportionate criminal consequences.
Conflict Between POCSO and Consent Jurisprudence
The debate around the Romeo–Juliet clause is closely linked to how Indian law understands consent and personal autonomy. While the legal age of consent remains eighteen, courts have increasingly acknowledged that young individuals also possess a degree of personal choice and emotional maturity, particularly in the context of consensual relationships.
Indian jurisprudence has gradually moved towards recognising that laws dealing with sexual offences must protect minors from abuse without treating every intimate relationship involving adolescents as a crime. There is a growing recognition that not all such relationships are exploitative or harmful, and that a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach can lead to unjust outcomes.
Despite this evolving understanding, the current framework under the POCSO Act leaves no room for judicial discretion. Even when both individuals are minors and the relationship is voluntary, the law mandates criminal prosecution. This often results in consequences that are disproportionate to the nature of the conduct involved and inconsistent with principles of fairness, rehabilitation, and justice.
Impact on Adolescents and the Justice System
The absence of a Romeo–Juliet clause has far-reaching consequences. Adolescents accused under POCSO face:
1.Arrest and detention
2.Social ostracisation
3.Interruption of education
4.Long-term psychological trauma
Additionally, the justice system is burdened with cases that do not involve actual abuse, diverting attention and resources away from genuine instances of child sexual exploitation.
Conclusion
The Romeo–Juliet clause represents a necessary evolution in India’s child protection framework. While the objective of protecting children from sexual abuse must remain paramount, the law must also recognise the realities of adolescent relationships. Criminal law should be a shield against exploitation, not a weapon against consensual youth relationships.
As courts continue to highlight the urgent need for reform, it is now incumbent upon the legislature to strike a careful balance one that protects children without criminalising childhood itself. The future of a fair and humane justice system depends on this balance.
