Supreme Court Advocates for 'Romeo-Juliet' Clause to Safeguard Adolescent Relationships

In a significant move, the Supreme Court has recommended the introduction of a 'Romeo-Juliet' clause to safeguard consensual adolescent relationships from criminal prosecution under the POCSO Act. This proposal aims to protect genuine relationships while also addressing the misuse of the law. The court's observations highlight the societal challenges faced by adolescents and the need for a balanced approach to legal protections. The ruling comes in response to previous directives from the Allahabad High Court regarding age determination in such cases. The Supreme Court's decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring justice while preventing the exploitation of legal provisions.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jan 11, 2026, 14:41 IST

Supreme Court's Recommendation on Adolescent Relationships

The Supreme Court has called on the Union government to contemplate the introduction of a 'Romeo-Juliet' clause aimed at shielding consensual adolescent relationships from legal repercussions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

On Friday, the court emphasized that such a provision should exempt 'genuine adolescent relationships from the stringent application of this law' and establish a framework to prosecute individuals who misuse these laws for personal vendettas.

A 'Romeo-Juliet' clause serves as a legal exception to statutory rape laws, applicable when the age difference between the involved parties is minimal and the relationship is consensual.

This statement was made by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh while overturning directives issued by the Allahabad High Court in a bail matter related to the POCSO Act.

The High Court had mandated that police conduct medical examinations to ascertain the victim's age at the outset of investigations under the Act. It also instructed bail courts to evaluate these medical findings and the authenticity of age-related documents like school or birth certificates.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court overstepped its authority by issuing such orders in response to a bail application, noting that these directives violated the Juvenile Justice Act's provisions.

According to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a person's age should be determined based on a matriculation certificate or an equivalent document from school. If these are unavailable, a birth certificate from a municipal authority or panchayat may be used. Medical assessments, such as ossification tests, should only be conducted when these documents are lacking.

While the Supreme Court annulled the High Court's directives regarding age verification, it did not interfere with the bail granted to an individual accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor.

The bench remarked that courts have frequently encountered cases where a woman's age is inaccurately reported as under 18 years to invoke the POCSO Act against men.

The court highlighted that the misuse of the POCSO Act reveals a troubling societal divide.

'On one side, children are silenced by fear, and their families are hindered by poverty or stigma, resulting in justice being elusive and uncertain. Conversely, those with privilege, education, and financial resources can manipulate the law for their benefit,' the court stated.

The bench instructed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Union law secretary for the ministry to consider potential measures to address this issue.