Under POCSO, Consent on Trial: Adolescent Autonomy, Statutory Rape and Reform Debate

Why in News? / Context

• In January 2026, the Supreme Court of India urged the Union Government to consider introducing a “Romeo and Juliet” clause in the POCSO Act, 2012, exempting consensual close-in-age adolescent relationships.
• Courts increasingly confront cases where POCSO is invoked by families opposing inter-caste or inter-faith relationships, transforming consensual adolescent intimacy into statutory rape prosecutions.
• A 2022 Enfold study analysing 7,064 POCSO judgments (2016–2020) found 24.3% cases involved romantic relationships, with 80.2% complaints filed by parents, revealing systemic misuse concerns.

Legal Background

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

• Enacted to provide a comprehensive, gender-neutral framework addressing child sexual abuse, pornography, and aggravated penetrative assault, ensuring child-friendly procedures and special courts.
• Defines a “child” as any person below 18 years, criminalising all sexual acts involving minors irrespective of consent, thereby creating strict liability statutory rape framework.
• Provides mandatory minimum sentence of seven years, extendable to life imprisonment for penetrative sexual assault, reflecting zero-tolerance legislative intent.

Age of Consent in India

• For over 70 years, age of consent under IPC was 16 years; raised to 18 years in 2012 with POCSO enactment.
• The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, post-Nirbhaya reforms, retained 18 years as uniform age of consent, consolidating statutory rape doctrine.
• Current framework treats consensual adolescent intimacy identically to exploitative abuse, creating doctrinal tension between protection and autonomy.

Mandatory Reporting under Section 19 POCSO

• Section 19 mandates any person or institution with knowledge of a POCSO offence to report to police; failure punishable with up to six months’ imprisonment, one year for institutional heads.
• Doctors and counsellors legally obligated to report minor sexual activity, even if consensual, creating ethical conflict between confidentiality and legal compliance.
• In September 2022, Supreme Court relaxed disclosure norms, allowing doctors to protect minor’s identity if confidentiality requested, but FIR registration remains mandatory.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 (Amended 2021)

• Permits termination up to 24 weeks in specified categories, including minors; however, reporting obligations under POCSO complicate confidential reproductive healthcare access.
• Conflict between reproductive rights jurisprudence (Article 21 – dignity and privacy) and mandatory criminal reporting regime creates systemic tension.

Constitutional Dimensions

Right to Privacy and Sexual Autonomy

• In Puttaswamy (2017), Supreme Court recognised privacy as fundamental right under Article 21, encompassing decisional autonomy in intimate matters.
• Navtej Johar (2018) affirmed sexual autonomy and dignity as constitutional values; yet minors remain excluded from consensual autonomy under statutory rape framework.

Equality and Non-Discrimination

• Blanket criminalisation disproportionately affects inter-caste and inter-faith couples, implicating Articles 14 and 15 concerns of indirect discrimination.
• Evidence suggests male adolescents often prosecuted, while female minors categorised as victims, reinforcing gender stereotypes.

Empirical Trends and Social Impact

Romantic Relationship Cases

• Enfold’s 7,064-judgment analysis revealed 24.3% cases were romantic, with 80.2% parental complaints, indicating weaponisation to enforce social conformity.
• High acquittal rates reflect breakdown of prosecution when complainants retract statements, suggesting misuse rather than genuine abuse cases.

Rural and Social Context

• POCSO often invoked in inter-caste relationships, reinforcing entrenched social hierarchies and honour-based familial resistance.
• Adolescents from marginalised backgrounds face greater vulnerability due to limited legal literacy and access to legal representation.

Challenges

• Over-Criminalisation: Age of consent at 18 years criminalises consensual 16–17-year-old relationships, ignoring developmental psychology and normative adolescent behaviour.
• Mandatory Reporting Conflict: Section 19 reporting leads to FIR registration even in consensual cases, undermining confidentiality in reproductive healthcare.
• High Romantic Case Share (24.3%) burdens Special Courts, diverting resources from genuine abuse prosecution.
• Socio-Cultural Weaponisation: 80.2% parental complaints reflect caste and religious opposition rather than child protection imperatives.
• Ambiguity in Close-in-Age Proposal: Supreme Court’s “Romeo and Juliet” suggestion lacks definitional clarity, risking inconsistent interpretation and litigation overload.

Way Forward

• Introduce Statutory Close-in-Age Exception: Exempt consensual relationships where age difference ≤3–5 years and both parties above 16, modelled on comparative jurisdictions.
• Amend Section 19 Reporting Norms: Create conditional reporting exemption for consensual adolescent cases certified by Child Welfare Committees.
• Judicial Screening Mechanism: Mandate preliminary inquiry by Special Courts to distinguish exploitative abuse from consensual relationships before framing charges.
• Strengthen Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) aligned with National Education Policy to equip adolescents with consent literacy and risk awareness.
• Data Transparency Dashboard: Annual publication of POCSO case typology (romantic vs exploitative) to guide evidence-based legislative reform.

Prelims Pointers

• POCSO Act, 2012: Child defined as below 18 years; mandatory reporting under Section 19.
• Age of consent raised to 18 in 2012, retained in Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
• MTP Act 1971 (Amended 2021): Termination permitted up to 24 weeks in specified cases.

---