Answer

Introduction

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, defines a “child” as anyone below 18 years, establishing a rigid age of consent. While designed to shield minors from predatory abuse, this “bright-line” rule increasingly clashes with the evolving capacities and romantic autonomy of adolescents, often criminalizing voluntary peer relationships.

Body

Conflict Between Protection and Autonomy

• Blanket Criminalization: The law labels every sexual act involving a minor as statutory rape, without distinguishing between abuse and consensual teenage relationships.
  Eg: A 2024-25 study by civil society organizations found that nearly 25% of POCSO cases arise from consensual romantic relationships.
• Erosion of Autonomy: By fixing a rigid age threshold, the Act ignores the evolving capacities of 16–18 year olds, stripping them of personal agency and bodily autonomy.
  Eg: The Calcutta High Court (2024) observed that the blanket criminality of POCSO often infringes upon a girl’s identity and an adolescent’s evolving capacities.
• Weaponization by Families: Parents frequently misuse POCSO to punish elopements or inter-caste / inter-religious relationships, aided by mandatory reporting and strict bail norms.
• Stigma and Trauma: Mandatory medical examinations and prolonged criminal trials traumatize adolescents, often causing greater harm than the relationship itself.
  Eg: In Anurudh v. State of UP (2026), the Supreme Court noted a “grim societal chasm”, highlighting how misuse of POCSO silences children through fear while poverty and stigma prevent families from seeking justice.
• Impact on Health: Fear of mandatory reporting (Section 19) prevents adolescents from seeking essential sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services or safe abortions.
  Eg: Research indicates that girls often resort to unsafe clandestine abortions to avoid the legal repercussions triggered by hospital reporting under POCSO.
• Judicial Overburdening: Special Courts are flooded with romantic cases that end in acquittal, diverting attention from genuine child abuse prosecutions.
  

Suggested Measures to Balance Safety and Reality

• Close-in Age difference: Introduce limited exemptions for consensual acts where the age difference between partners is narrow (e.g., less than 2-3 years).
  Eg: The Supreme Court (2026) urged the Union government to consider a “Romeo-Juliet” clause to exempt genuine adolescent relationships from POCSO’s rigours.
• Guided Sentencing Discretion: Amend the Act to allow judges the discretion to reduce or waive mandatory minimum sentences in cases involving adolescents aged 16–18.
  Eg: The Law Commission (Report 283) recommended “guided judicial discretion” in sentencing to address the harshness of the current rigid framework.
• Pre-Trial Screening: Establish a mechanism for a Preliminary Assessment by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to filter out consensual cases before an FIR is mandatorily filed.
• Safe Harbour for SRH: Amend Section 19 to provide immunity to healthcare professionals when adolescents seek confidential reproductive health advice or services.
• Restorative Justice Approach: Focus on family mediation and confidential counselling rather than punitive incarceration for non-exploitative peer relationships.
  Eg: Courts have increasingly used Article 142 to quash convictions where couples have subsequently married and lead stable family lives.
• Age-Appropriate Education: Integrate comprehensive sexuality education into school curricula to empower adolescents with knowledge of “consent” and the legal implications of POCSO.

Conclusion

While the protection of children remains a “solemn articulation,” the law must not become a “blunt instrument” that victimizes the very youth it seeks to save. Reforming POCSO to include a “Close-in-Age” exception will ensure that the criminal justice system targets actual predators while respecting the human dignity and evolving autonomy of India’s adolescents by 2047.

DOWNLOAD PDF