Supreme Court Introduces Romeo and Juliet Clause Amid Controversial POCSO Case
The Context of the Case
You may be familiar with the famous tale of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, where two star-crossed lovers face the wrath of their feuding families. Their love, though genuine, leads them to a tragic end. Fast forward to today, and the echoes of this story resonate within the corridors of India's highest court, the Supreme Court. This resurgence is due to a recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court in a sexual assault case, where the court granted bail to a male accused based on discrepancies between the girl's reported age and her school certificate. The Uttar Pradesh government found this decision troubling, believing it should have been addressed under the POCSO Act. Consequently, they appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's ruling, prompting the Supreme Court to issue directives that acknowledged the difference between societal realities and documented truths, leading to the introduction of the Romeo and Juliet Clause.
Details of the Incident
The case originates from Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, where a man was accused of repeatedly raping a minor girl and blackmailing her with explicit videos. This abuse continued for six months, and an FIR was filed on December 2, 2024. The sessions court denied bail to the accused, but in April 2025, the Allahabad High Court granted him bail, citing uncertainty regarding the girl's age, suggesting she might be over 18, thus not applicable under the POCSO Act. The High Court mandated that a medical age determination test be conducted at the outset of such cases, with the report presented during bail hearings. The Uttar Pradesh government subsequently challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Stance on Youth Welfare
The Supreme Court emphasized that these laws are not only meant to protect children from sexual exploitation but are also being misused in cases involving consensual relationships among teenagers. The court noted that families often oppose such relationships, leading to criminal charges against the youth.
Balancing Safety and Personal Freedom
Under the POCSO Act, anyone under 18 is classified as a child, and the law does not recognize consent from minors for sexual acts. Therefore, any sexual activity involving individuals below this age is automatically deemed a crime, regardless of consent. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while POCSO serves as a crucial legal framework, its misuse has created significant societal divides. The court pointed out that families frequently leverage this act to challenge relationships between young people.
Calls for Legal Reform
The demand for amendments to the law is not new, but it has gained momentum due to a public interest petition pending in the Supreme Court concerning the protection of women in sexual offense prosecutions. In this context, advocate Indira Jaising has argued for lowering the age of consent or introducing exceptions. In her written submissions last year, she contended that the broad criminalization under current laws violates the fundamental rights of adolescents as outlined in Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. She asserted that adolescents aged 16 to 18 possess a 'developing capacity' to make decisions regarding their sexual autonomy. Citing the mature minor doctrine, she argued that assuming all individuals under 18 are incapable of consenting ignores biological realities and the onset of puberty. Jaising proposed a close-in-age exception, suggesting that consensual acts between minors, such as a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old, should not be classified as crimes, thereby protecting young individuals from incarceration under the POCSO Act.
Government's Position on Maintaining Status Quo
The central government has opposed any reduction in the age of consent or the introduction of legislative exceptions. In its arguments before the court, the government maintained that the age of 18 is a 'considered legislative decision' aimed at providing an unambiguous protective shield for children. The government argued that minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful consent. It emphasized the necessity of a stringent accountability framework, where consent holds no weight, as children can be manipulated and pressured by trusted adults. The government expressed concerns that implementing exceptions or lowering the age of consent could open doors to child exploitation and trafficking under the guise of consensual relationships. Since the POCSO Act was designed to address specific issues of child exploitation, lowering the age limit could potentially revive the very problems the law aims to resolve.