By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has suggested that the legislature consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet” clause into the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Made by a bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Anurudh & Anr, the observation has reignited debate on how the law should treat consensual adolescent relationships that fall below the statutory age of consent.
The suggestion goes beyond legal nuance. It raises deeper questions about how law intersects with society and lived realities: should youthful romance be criminalised, can consent be meaningfully assessed in adolescence, and how does the legal system balance protection with empathy?
HOW IT STARTED
The matter arose from an Allahabad High Court decision granting bail to a juvenile accused under POCSO. While doing so, the High Court directed investigative agencies to conduct medical tests, such as ossification tests, at the outset of investigations to determine the victim’s age.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the bench examined not only the procedural propriety of these directions, but also a broader concern: whether consensual adolescent relationships should automatically attract the stringent provisions of POCSO. The Court’s observation was not binding, but suggestive—an invitation to the legislature to reconsider how the law differentiates between predatory conduct and youthful companionship.
WHAT IS THE “ROMEO-JULIET” CLAUSE?
The term “Romeo-Juliet clause” is drawn from international legal discourse. It refers to statutory provisions that exempt adolescents from criminal liability when:
Both parties are below the age of consent, but close in age.
The relationship is consensual and free from coercion or exploitation.
The age difference between the parties is minimal, often capped at two or three years.
The objective is straightforward: to prevent the criminalisation of consensual teenage relationships while retaining robust safeguards against sexual exploitation.
CONSENT, ADOLESCENCE AND THE LAW
Adolescence is a transitional phase marked by emotional exploration, identity formation, and the awakening of intimacy. It is also a stage where natural curiosity often collides with rigid legal boundaries.
The POCSO Act, enacted in 2012, was designed to provide strong protection to children against sexual abuse, exploitation, and violence. Its intent is unambiguous and laudable. However, its application has sometimes brought consensual adolescent relationships within its punitive scope. Consider common scenarios:
A 17-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl in a consensual relationship are booked under POCSO following parental opposition.
Disapproving families invoke criminal law to punish adolescent partners.
The outcome is often trauma, social stigma, and prolonged litigation for the very individuals the law seeks to protect.
This leads to a fundamental question: should youthful romance be punished in the same manner as exploitation? Should culpable intent—or its absence—matter in such cases?
THE BALANCING ACT
By suggesting a Romeo-Juliet clause, the Supreme Court has attempted to strike a careful balance:
Protection from exploitation remains paramount.
Recognition of adolescent autonomy prevents over-criminalisation.
This is not a dilution of child protection laws, as critics fear, but a refinement—an acknowledgment that law must evolve in step with social realities rather than operate in isolation from them.
POCSO: A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD
Indian courts have repeatedly encountered cases where strict application of POCSO has led to the prosecution of consensual adolescent relationships.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs Anurudh & Anr: Despite a consensual relationship, POCSO was invoked by the girl’s family. The High Court granted bail, and the Supreme Court later noted how such cases highlight the misuse of the Act.
Family Opposition Across Social Divides: Courts have observed that POCSO is often used to suppress relationships across caste, religion, or class lines, transforming a protective law into an instrument of social control.
Judicial Sensitivity: Several High Courts have urged legislative reform, stressing that adolescents in consensual relationships should not face the same consequences as sexual predators.
These cases underline the urgent need for nuance. Without a Romeo-Juliet clause, the law risks blurring the line between protection and punishment.
WHAT THE WORLD THINKS
Globally, several jurisdictions have adopted more flexible approaches:
United States: Many states provide “close-in-age exemptions”. In Texas, for instance, consensual relationships between a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old may not attract statutory rape charges.
Canada: Adolescents aged 14-15 may consent to sexual activity with partners less than five years older, provided the relationship is non-exploitative.
Europe: Countries like Germany and the Netherlands recognise adolescent autonomy through flexible age-of-consent frameworks.
India, by contrast, retains a rigid age of consent at 18, with no statutory exceptions. The Supreme Court’s suggestion thus aligns India with evolving global standards that balance protection with pragmatism.
THE SOCIAL DIMENSION
This debate is not merely legal—it is deeply social. Adolescent relationships in India often clash with cultural norms, parental authority, and community pressures. In extreme cases, POCSO has been used as a pretext for coercion, social punishment, or even honour-based violence.
A carefully drafted Romeo-Juliet clause could reduce such misuse, ease judicial burdens, and ensure that consensual adolescent relationships are not automatically criminalised.
CHALLENGES AHEAD
Introducing such a clause presents challenges:
Defining a permissible age gap.
Preventing adult predators from misusing the exemption.
Ensuring genuine consent is distinguished from manipulation.
Sensitising families, schools, and communities.
These concerns demand thoughtful legislative drafting rather than blanket criminalisation.
LAW, EMPATHY, AND THE WAY FORWARD
The Supreme Court’s observation is more than a legal suggestion—it is a call for empathy. Laws must protect, but they must also understand. A Romeo-Juliet clause, if carefully framed, could prevent needless criminalisation while preserving the core intent of POCSO.
As Justices Karol and Singh observed, the law must not only punish but also understand. In that understanding lies the true spirit of justice.
The proposal marks a watershed moment in Indian jurisprudence. If implemented with care, it could transform how the legal system views adolescence—not as a phase to be policed, but as a journey to be guided with compassion and wisdom.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi
The post Why the Court’s “Romeo-Juliet” Suggestion Matters appeared first on India Legal.