E-Paper
SC flags Pocso misuse, urges ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause
The Supreme Court urged the Union government to consider a "Romeo-Juliet" clause for adolescent relationships under POCSO, citing misuse of the law.
New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Friday urged the Union government to consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet” clause to exempt genuine adolescent relationships from the rigours of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, while also calling for a statutory mechanism to prosecute those who invoke the law to settle personal scores.
A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh cautioned that although POCSO is a legislation of “solemn articulation” aimed at protecting children, it is frequently “misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge”, thereby threatening to invert the very notion of justice the law seeks to uphold.
The ruling adds to a growing body of judicial concern over the misuse of stringent criminal laws and calls for a legislative introspection on how to balance child protection with fairness, proportionality and adolescent autonomy. The concerns have also surfaced at a time when a separate batch of petitions before the Supreme Court is examining the age of consent under the POCSO Act. In those proceedings, the Union government has firmly opposed any move to lower the age of consent or to carve out statutory exceptions for adolescent relationships, arguing that any such dilution , “even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy”, would dismantle the protective architecture of the law and risk opening the door to child abuse.
The bench’s observations came while allowing an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against a high court order granting bail in a POCSO case and issuing sweeping directions mandating medical age determination tests at the commencement of investigation in all such cases. Setting aside the ruling, the Supreme Court held that medical determination of a victim’s age cannot be resorted to as a matter of course and that the high court had transgressed both statutory limits and its bail jurisdiction.
In a strongly worded judgment, the bench acknowledged the “well-intentioned purport” behind the high court’s concern but underlined that POCSO, despite its noble objectives, has increasingly been weaponised. The court noted a “grim societal chasm” in the application of the law -- on one end, children silenced by fear, stigma and poverty, and on the other, individuals with social and economic capital manipulating the criminal justice system to their advantage.
The court pointed out that there are numerous instances where the age of the victim is misrepresented to bring cases within the stringent framework of POCSO, as well as cases where the law is invoked by families opposed to romantic relationships between adolescents. “The impugned judgment is one amongst many where courts have spoken out,” said the bench, observing that repeated judicial alarms on the misuse of the statute could no longer be ignored.
Referring to decisions of the apex court as well as by Allahabad, Delhi and Gujarat high courts, the Supreme Court noted a growing pattern of POCSO cases being filed at the behest of families objecting to consensual teenage relationships, resulting in young boys languishing in jail despite minimal age differences and evidence of voluntary companionship.
Against this backdrop, the bench directed that a copy of its judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider legislative measures to curb such misuse. These include the possible introduction of a “Romeo-Juliet” clause to exempt genuine adolescent relationships from the strict operation of POCSO, and the creation of mechanisms to prosecute complainants who abuse the law to exact vengeance.
The court stressed that no amount of judicial vigilance alone could address the problem, emphasising that meaningful reform would require ethical restraint at multiple levels, including the Bar. Lawyers, it said, must act as gatekeepers of justice by counselling restraint where grievance masks vengeance and refusing to participate in litigation driven by ulterior motives. “The ethical vigilance of lawyers is not ancillary to justice; it is indispensable to it,” the bench observed.
On the issue of age determination, the Supreme Court held that the high court had acted coram non judice (beyond its powers) in directing investigating agencies across Uttar Pradesh to mandatorily conduct medical examinations to determine the victim’s age. Such directions, the bench said, directly contravened Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which accords primacy to documentary evidence such as birth certificates and school records.
While underscoring the critical role of medical examinations in sexual assault cases, the court clarified that their purpose is to collect scientific evidence relating to the offence, not to routinely substitute a legislatively prescribed procedure for determining age. Medical age determination, it said, can only be resorted to in exceptional circumstances where the statutory requirements under the JJ Act cannot be met.
The bench further held that the determination of a victim’s age is ultimately a matter for trial, not for adjudication at the bail stage. A bail court, it said, may take only a prima facie view of age based on available documents and cannot embark on assessing their correctness, as doing so would amount to a “mini trial” and an impermissible expansion of jurisdiction.
Allowing the state’s appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the directions issued by the high court, while clarifying that the effect of its judgment would be prospective. Bail already granted pursuant to the impugned rulings was left undisturbed, subject to judicial review on other grounds. The court also refrained from commenting on cases listed in the appendices to the high court judgments.
