Supreme Court calls for adding ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause in POCSO Act to protect genuine teen relationships

“Misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm,” the Supreme Court said.

• Supreme Court urges review of POCSO misuse in consensual teen relationships
• Court suggests a 'Romeo-Juliet clause' to protect genuine adolescent couples
• Supreme Court overturns High Court's age determination guidelines for bail cases

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court has flagged what it described as a troubling trend in the use of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, observing that a law designed to shield children from abuse is often invoked to penalise consensual relationships between adolescents.

The Court suggested that the Union government examine the possibility of introducing a 'Romeo-Juliet clause' to prevent such misuse and to protect genuine teenage relationships from harsh criminal consequences.

The observations came while the Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government in a bail matter under the POCSO Act, titled The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anurudh & Anr.

High Court directions under scrutiny

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh was examining a series of directions issued by the Allahabad High Court while granting bail in a POCSO case.

The High Court had directed that in every POCSO investigation, the police must conduct a medical examination at the outset to determine the age of the victim. It had also said that bail courts could scrutinise, and even reject, documents such as school certificates or birth records if they appeared doubtful.

The Supreme Court held that these directions went beyond the High Court’s jurisdiction in a bail proceeding. It made clear that a court dealing with bail cannot conduct 'mini trials', cannot conclusively decide disputed facts like age, and cannot override procedures laid down by Parliament for age determination.

Limits of bail jurisdiction

The apex court said that bail jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is limited. While constitutional courts have wide powers, those powers cannot be mixed with statutory bail powers, it said.

In bail matters, the court said, the only question is whether the accused should be released pending trial. Issuing sweeping directions that affect how investigations are conducted across a State amounts to a legal overreach, the court observed.

On this ground, the High Court’s directions were set aside, although the bail granted in the specific case was not disturbed as it rested on other considerations.

How age must be determined

Clarifying the legal position, the Supreme Court said that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 prescribes a clear hierarchy for age determination.

It said that the courts must first rely on documentary evidence such as school records or birth certificates. Only if these are unavailable should medical tests, including ossification or radiological examinations, be considered, it added.

The bench underlined that medical tests are a measure of last resort and cannot be made mandatory at the start of every investigation. Treating them as the default option, it said, would be contrary to the statutory scheme.

'POCSO Act used by families in opposition to relationships'

While correcting the High Court, the Supreme Court acknowledged the broader concern that prompted those directions. It noted that courts across the country are increasingly encountering cases where POCSO is used in disputes involving young couples who are close in age and in consensual relationships.

“The POCSO Act is one of the most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied, and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion,” the Court said.

It pointed out that there are “numerous instances where this law is used by families in opposition to relationships between young people,” and cases where the age of the girl is shown as below 18 to attract stringent provisions.

'Misuse of POCSO a grim societal chasm'

According to the bench, such misuse results in a serious imbalance. “Misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm,” it observed, explaining that on one side are children who genuinely need protection but are unable to access the system due to fear, poverty or stigma, while on the other are those with social and economic capital who manipulate the law.

Because of this, the Court directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Union Law Secretary. It said the Centre should consider steps to curb the misuse of the Act, including the idea of a 'Romeo-Juliet clause' to shield consensual adolescent relationships from criminal prosecution.

'Bar is the first line of defence'

The Supreme Court also placed responsibility on lawyers, pointing out that they act as the first filter of the justice system. “The first line of defence lies with the Bar,” the judgment said, adding that advocates must exercise restraint and refuse to pursue litigation where “grievance masks vengeance” under the guise of seeking legal protection.

Drawing parallels with the misuse of other laws, the Court said similar concerns have been raised in relation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It said that court orders alone cannot solve the problem unless society, institutions, and legal professionals act with honesty and responsibility.