The Supreme Court of India’s sentencing judgment in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (May 2025) is a remarkable example of the Court revisiting its stance by prioritising the voice of the young person most impacted by the criminal case initiated for her protection.

Background of the Case (Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents):

• Background: A 14-year-old girl from rural West Bengal eloped with a 25-year-old man, later married him, and had a child. 
  • The man was convicted under POCSO Act for kidnapping, rape, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
• Lower Court: POCSO Special Court sentenced the man to 20 years, constrained by stringent legal provisions, despite the girl’s distress and socio-economic challenges.
• Calcutta High Court (2022):
  • Reversed the conviction, citing the consensual nature of the relationship and socio-economic factors.
  • Took a “humane view” but made controversial remarks about female adolescents controlling sexual urges.
• Supreme Court (2023-2025):
  • Took suo motu cognisance after media outrage over High Court remarks.
  • August 2024: The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment, restoring the accused’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC. 
    • It clarified that consent is irrelevant under POCSO for a 14-year-old victim, and the High Court’s concept of “non-exploitative” consensual acts had no legal basis.
  • May 2025:  The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction, under Article 142 of the Constitution, not to impose a sentence, recognising the girl’s (now an adult) desire to live with the accused and the systemic failure to protect her.
    • Noted the emotional and financial toll on the family, calling it a “collective failure of the systems.”
    • Barred the case from being a precedent, terming it “extraordinary.”

Key Issues Raised by SC

• Conflict Between Law and Adolescent Reality: The POCSO Act criminalises all sexual activity under 18, regardless of consent.
  • This blanket criminalisation ignores adolescent agency, especially in romantic, non-exploitative relationships.
• Denial of Agency to Adolescents: Adolescents are treated only as victims, regardless of their own views.
  • Need to listen to the adolescent’s voice and view her as an agent with contextually limited choices.
• Failure of State Systems and Institutions: Case exposed failure at multiple levels:
  • Community stigma
  • Judicial insensitivity
  • Lack of child protection and support services
  • Police delay and poor investigation
  • Welfare schemes like Kanyashree Prakalpa under-implemented
• Trauma From Judicial Process, Not Relationship: Victim’s psychological and financial trauma stemmed not from the relationship but from prosecution, isolation, and institutionalisation.
  • Jail term for the accused would punish the victim further—“true justice” lies in not sentencing.
• Sentencing: Beyond Retribution: Though offence under POCSO was proven, SC deferred sentencing.
  • Sentencing would further harm the victim, who fought for her partner’s release and expressed willingness to live with him.
• Constitutionality & Welfare State Failure: Cited Preamble’s promise of justice and Directive Principles.
  • This case reflects a failure of the welfare state to protect the girl and her child—both social and economic justice denied.

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

• The POCSO Act was enacted in 2012 to protect children from sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and pornography.
• It ensures child-friendly procedures at every stage of the legal process, from investigation to trial.
• The Act covers both contact and non-contact sexual offences against children below 18 years.

Key Features of the POCSO Act

• Defined Child:  Defines a child as any person below 18 years incapable of ‘consent’.
• Time-bound Trial: Mandates the trial to be completed within one year from the date of cognizance.
• Mandatory Reporting: Obligates reporting of offences by any person, with penalties for failure to do so.
• Child-Friendly Procedures: Ensures in-camera trials, avoidance of aggressive cross-examination, and support persons for victims.
• Special Courts: Empowers state governments to designate special courts for exclusive POCSO trials.
• Gender Neutrality: Applies to all children irrespective of gender, including provisions for male and transgender child victims.

Key Issues with the POCSO Act

• Blanket Criminalisation of Adolescent Consensual Relationships: POCSO criminalises all sexual activity under the age of 18, regardless of consent or the nature of the relationship.
  • Various High Courts have emphasised that criminalising consensual sex was never the objective of the POCSO Act, while scientific studies confirm that sexual exploration is normal for older adolescents.
  • An Enfold study (2016–2020) across Assam, Maharashtra and West Bengal found 24.3% of POCSO cases involved consensual romantic relationships. 
  • In 82% of such cases, the victims refused to testify against the accused.
• Denial of Agency and Autonomy to Adolescents: The law presumes that all minors lack the capacity for sexual consent, rendering them voiceless.
  • The Calcutta HC had remarked that the law “undermines the identity of adolescent girls,” but the SC rejected this, reflecting the judiciary’s inability to see adolescents as agents of their choices.
• Misuse by Disapproving Families: POCSO is often used by families to criminalise adolescent relationships they disapprove of.
  • This was seen in the 2018 West Bengal case that led to the Right to Privacy of Adolescents suo motu case.
  • Inter-community relationships face higher scrutiny, leading to misuse of the law.
• Trauma from Legal System, Not the Relationship: Adolescents experience psychological, social, and financial trauma due to legal and institutional response — not the relationship itself.
  • The expert committee in the SC case reported that the victim’s trauma stemmed from court processes, stigma, institutionalisation, and family rejection, not the relationship.
• Mandatory Reporting Violates Confidentiality and Access to Healthcare: Mandatory reporting (Sec 19, POCSO) discourages adolescents from seeking reproductive health services.
  • Doctors are legally obliged to report any under-18 pregnancy or suspicion of sexual activity, which pushes girls toward unsafe abortions. 
• Judicial Paternalism and Victim-Shaming: Some court judgments display moralistic or gender-stereotyped views, undermining child-friendly justice.
  • The Bombay HC in Aakash Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra (2025) refused to quash a consensual case, stating that structural changes, not exceptions, are needed under the POCSO Act.
• Social and Cultural Context: Early marriages and relationships are common in some communities, clashing with POCSO’s strict provisions.
• Gender Dynamics: Though it is gender neutral, but generally, male adolescents are disproportionately prosecuted in consensual relationship cases, raising concerns about fairness.

Key SC Cases related to POCSO

• Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017): SC struck down Exception 2 to Section 375, declaring that sexual intercourse with a minor wife (below 18) constitutes rape, aligning with POCSO.
  • Held that the exception discriminated against married minor girls and violated their bodily autonomy.
  • Clarified that POCSO overrides conflicting provisions in other laws, ensuring uniform protection for all children under 18.
• Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India (2018): SC directed the establishment of more Special Courts for POCSO cases.
  • Mandated time-bound trials (within 6 months) to ensure speedy justice.
  • Ordered training for judges, prosecutors, and police to handle cases sensitively.
  • Emphasized victim compensation and rehabilitation under Section 33(8) of POCSO.
• Attorney General for India v. Satish (2021): SC clarified that “sexual intent” determines an offense under Section 7, not the requirement of skin-to-skin contact.
  • Held that narrow interpretations undermine POCSO’s protective intent.
• Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019): Supreme Court Prohibited disclosure of victims’ identities under Section 23 of POCSO, including in media, judgments, or public records.
  • Directed states to establish Victim Compensation Schemes and ensure counseling and rehabilitation.
  • Ordered anonymization of victim details in court documents.
•  Just Rights for Children’s Alliance v. S. Harish (2024): SC Clarified Section 15 of POCSO: Mere possession of child sexual abuse material (CSEAM) without reporting it is punishable.
  • Interpreted Section 67B of the IT Act as also criminalising viewing and downloading, not just transmission.
  • Rejected use of the term child pornography, recommending the use of CSEAM.
  • Directed mandatory reporting by intermediaries and social media platforms.
  • Recommended amending the POCSO Act to align terminology with the gravity of the offence.

Way Forward / Suggestions for Reform

• Review Age of Consent Laws: Lower the age of consent to 16 years, with close-in-age exemptions (e.g. 3–5 years gap).
  • Prevents criminalisation of peer relationships while still prohibiting exploitation.
• Improve Sex Education and Awareness: Implement comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) in schools to promote safe, respectful adolescent behaviour.
  • Prevents unsafe practices and misinformation; aligns with SC’s recommendation (May 2025 judgment).
• Reform Mandatory Reporting Provisions: Make mandatory reporting (Sec 19) more nuanced—e.g., exceptions in consensual adolescent cases or confidential reporting.
  • Allowed doctors to file POCSO reports without disclosing the minor’s identity.
• Strengthen Support & Rehabilitation Infrastructure: Improve implementation of welfare schemes (e.g. Kanyashree Prakalpa, Mission Vatsalya), CWCs, and vocational training.
  • States to ensure housing, education, and counselling for the victim and child.
• Sensitise Judiciary and Police: Conduct regular training on gender-sensitive and child-friendly judicial conduct.
  • Courts have made problematic, moralistic comments in the past; SC condemned this and issued guidelines.
• Legal Clarity & Structural Reform: Re-examine and amend the POCSO Act to:
  • Define “non-exploitative” sexual relationships
  • Specify conditions under which consent is invalid (e.g. coercion, authority)

Conclusion

The POCSO Act is vital for protecting children from sexual abuse, but its rigid framework criminalises normal adolescent behaviour and causes avoidable trauma. A balanced legal, social, and institutional approach is essential to uphold child rights without undermining their agency.

DOWNLOAD PDF