By Sujit Bhar
The recent decision of the Meghalaya High Court to quash a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case against a man who is now living with the survivor as her husband and raising their seven-year-old daughter has reignited an important debate about the relationship between law, social realities, and justice.
Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere, while hearing a petition filed by the survivor’s mother, quashed Lumdiengjri Police Station Case No 29(04) of 2018 on June 13. The Court noted that the survivor and the accused are now living together as husband and wife and have a child. The judgment relied on the Court’s earlier decision in the Shalenbor Wahlang vs State of Meghalaya case, where the court recognised the necessity of considering Meghalaya’s social realities while dealing with consensual adolescent relationships that eventually culminate in marriage or stable family life.
The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. The survivor was around 16 years old when she became pregnant. A complaint was lodged by her mother in 2018, leading to registration of a POCSO case. During the hearing, both the survivor and her mother supported the plea for quashing the proceedings. The mother stated that her daughter was happily settled with the accused, who was taking care of both her and their child. The survivor confirmed that the relationship had been consensual and that they had been living together as husband and wife since 2023.
The Court observed that such situations, often described as “Romeo-Juliet cases”, are not uncommon in Meghalaya and that a rigid application of the law without considering the surrounding circumstances could produce greater injustice for the survivor and the child born from the relationship. The Court also directed authorities to ensure that the survivor and child receive all welfare benefits available under various government schemes, including those intended for survivors under the POCSO framework.
At one level, this appears to be a clean, open-and-shut case. There is no allegation of force. The relationship was admittedly consensual. The couple has chosen to remain together. A child has been born and is being raised within a stable family environment. The survivor herself wishes the proceedings to end. Continuing criminal prosecution in such circumstances could potentially destroy the very family unit that the law should seek to protect.
BROADER IMPLICATIONS
Yet, the broader implications of such judgments require careful examination.
The POCSO Act was enacted with a clear objective: to protect children from sexual exploitation, abuse, coercion and predatory conduct. The law deliberately adopts a strict framework because minors are considered legally incapable of providing informed consent to sexual activity. The intention was to remove ambiguity and ensure that children receive the highest possible protection.
This is where the challenge begins. If courts increasingly rely upon the “Romeo-Juliet” doctrine to quash cases involving underage relationships that later culminate in marriage or family life, there is a risk that the principle may be misappÂlied in cases where genuine exploitation has occurred.Â
A judgment such as the Meghalaya case is understandable, because the facts are unusually clear and the outcome appears equitable. However, using it as a broad precedent could tie the hands of law enforcement agencies and ultimately weaken the protective purpose of the POCSO Act.
Not every underage relationship that results in marriage is consensual. Not every family that appears stable years later was formed without coercion. In many parts of India, social pressure, economic dependence, family honour, community influence and fear of ostracism often shape the choices made by young women. The danger lies in assuming that every relationship retrospectively presented as consensual was genuinely so at the time it began.
This concern becomes even more significant when viewed from the perspective of law enforcement.
THE LEGAL MANDATE
The police operate under legal mandates, not social assumptions. When a complaint is received that a minor girl has become pregnant or has entered into a sexual relationship, officers are required by law to register a case if the facts indicate a possible POCSO offence. Failure to do so could expose them to disciplinary proceedings, judicial criticism and allegations of negligence.
In the Meghalaya case, therefore, it would be unfair to fault the police for registering the case in 2018. They acted according to the statute as it exists.
The practical question is whether police officers can realistically be expected to conduct a detailed sociological inquiry into every such case before registering offences or filing charge sheets.
India already suffers from a severe shortage of law enforcement personnel. Police forces across states remain understaffed and overburdened. Investigating officers routinely handle dozens of cases simultaneously. The criminal justice system itself faces enormous pendency, with courts across the country struggling under millions of pending cases.
Against this backdrop, expecting investigators to carefully distinguish between consensual adolescent relationships, coercive relationships, social marriages, elopements, trafficking cases, forced marriages and genuine sexual exploitation before taking legal action may be asking too much of an already overstretched system.
The result is predictable. Faced with legal uncertainty and personal accountability, police officers often choose the safest institutional route: register the case under POCSO and allow the courts to determine the finer distinctions later.
A PAN-INDIA ISSUE
This phenomenon is not limited to Meghalaya. Across rural India, and indeed across many states, POCSO cases arising out of adolescent relationships have become increasingly common. Families often invoke criminal law when relationships cross caste, religious, economic or social boundaries. In some situations, complaints are filed after consensual elopements. In others, pregnancy leads to mandatory reporting and criminal proceedings. Occasionally, the parties eventually marry and seek closure of the case years later.
At the same time, there exists another reality that cannot be ignored.
Cases involving abduction, forced marriage, trafficking, rape and long-term abuse within underage marriages continue to surface with disturbing regularity. Many victims remain trapped within family or community structures that discourage reporting. In such situations, a diluted interpretation of POCSO could become a shield for perpetrators rather than a protection for victims.
This creates a dilemma for law enforcement agencies.
How should investigators function within a legal system that must simultaneously enforce statutory protections while navigating deeply embedded social norms and traditions?
The answer cannot be to abandon the law. Nor can it be to ignore social realities.
Indeed, the Meghalaya judgment itself does not advocate disregarding the law. Rather, it demonstrates the importance of judicial discretion when exceptional facts demand a humane outcome. What it does not do—and what it should not be interpreted as doing—is create a blanket exemption for all adolescent relationships.
NOT JUST AN INDIAN PROBLEM
The challenge is hardly unique to India. Even in developed countries such as the United States, underage marriages continue to exist, particularly in rural and conservative regions. Various studies and advocacy campaigns have highlighted how child marriages have persisted despite legal restrictions. In many jurisdictions, exceptions based on parental consent, judicial approval or cultural practices have historically allowed such marriages to occur.
Yet, few would argue that such practices should become the norm. The fact that underage marriages continue elsewhere
is not a justification for accepting them uncritically in India. If anything, international experience demonstrates the risks associated with normalising relationships involving minors.
India’s circumstances are even more complicated because of the scale of criminal litigation, social diversity, economic disparities and variations in local customs. A one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to succeed.
What is needed is a common meeting ground between law and lived reality.
POSSIBLE GUIDELINES
One possible solution could involve developing clear statutory or judicial guidelines for handling consensual adolescent relationships that fall within a narrow age range. Several countries have adopted limited “close-in-age” exemptions that distinguish consensual relationships between teenagers from exploitative relationships involving substantial age differences or positions of authority.
Such safeguards would need to be drafted carefully and accompanied by strict protections against misuse. The objective would not be to weaken child protection laws, but to ensure that genuinely consensual adolescent relationships are not automatically treated identically to predatory offences.
Another possibility is the creation of specialised review mechanisms at the district level. Before charge sheets are finalised in certain categories of cases, multidisciplinary panels involving child welfare experts, prosecutors and investigators could assess whether the facts indicate exploitation or a consensual adolescent relationship. Such a process could reduce unnecessary criminalisation while preserving protections for genuine victims.
Equally important is the need for better training of police officers and prosecutors. Investigators require practical guidance on identifying coercion, grooming, manipulation and abuse, while also recognising situations where criminal prosecution may ultimately serve no useful purpose.
Most importantly, the legal system must develop mechanisms that resolve these questions at an early stage. Justice should not depend upon a couple spending years in litigation before finally approaching a High Court for relief.
NEED FOR A BALANCED APPROACH
The Meghalaya case reached a humane conclusion because the facts permitted one. The survivor, her mother, the accused and the child all appeared to benefit from the outcome. The Court rightly considered the welfare of the family before it and prevented the law from producing an unnecessarily harsh result.
However, the larger lesson is not that the POCSO Act should be relaxed. The lesson is that rigid legal frameworks sometimes require carefully calibrated flexibility when confronted with complex human realities.
The real challenge lies in creating that flexibility without undermining the law’s protective purpose.
India cannot afford a situation where every consensual adolescent relationship becomes a criminal case. Equally, it cannot permit the language of “Romeo-Juliet cases” to become a convenient escape route in matters involving genuine abuse, coercion or exploitation.
The search for a balanced approach is therefore urgent. The objective must be a legal framework that protects children, respects social realities, assists law enforcement and delivers timely justice without requiring High Courts to intervene repeatedly in situations that could have been resolved much earlier.
The Meghalaya verdict has opened an important conversation. The task now is to ensure that compassion and common sense complement the law without ever replacing the protections that vulnerable children need.
The post Between The Law And A Hard Place appeared first on India Legal.