New Delhi- In a clarion call for legislative reform amid rising concerns over the misuse of child protection laws, the Supreme Court has explicitly advocated for the introduction of a "Romeo-Juliet clause" within the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, to safeguard consensual relationships between close-in-age adolescents from criminal prosecution.
Delivered in its January 9, judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr., a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside controversial directives from the Allahabad High Court on mandatory medical age tests in POCSO bail proceedings but used the post-script to highlight the law's weaponization against young couples.
The case originated from a 2022 FIR in Jalaun district, Uttar Pradesh, where the mother of a girl, claimed to be 12 years old, accused Anurudh and another of abducting and sexually assaulting her under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The trial court denied bail on September 29, 2023, but the High Court, on April 22, 2024, directed the Chief Medical Officer to form a board for the victim's age assessment amid inconsistencies in school records and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. Granting interim bail on May 8, 2024, the single judge later confirmed it, accepting medical evidence placing the victim over 18 and issuing five directives to enforce Sections 164A CrPC and 27 POCSO Act alongside Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). These included mandatory medical reports at investigation's start, their production in bail courts, and prioritizing medical findings over documents like school records "in appropriate facts and circumstances."
The Supreme Court overturned directions issued by the Allahabad High Court mandating medical age determination tests for victims in Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases right from the investigation's outset.
The bench, allowed the state's appeal where the High Court had granted bail to accused Anurudh and issued sweeping guidelines to prevent "systemic lapses" in age verification. The apex court emphasized that such directives exceed the limited scope of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), describing the High Court's exercise as "coram non judice" - without jurisdiction- and clarified that age disputes must be resolved during trial, not bail hearings, to avoid "mini-trials" that could prejudice the proceedings.
"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... intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion," the bench observed, directing the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider steps like a "Romeo-Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law" and mechanisms to prosecute false complainants.
This recommendation stems from documented patterns where parents lodge statutory rape cases against boys in teen elopements, treating girls as "victims incapable of giving consent" and denying both parties' sexual autonomy, as revealed in an Enfold India analysis of POCSO cases from Assam, Maharashtra, and West Bengal, where 24.3% were "romantic" consensual adolescent relationships, and 80.2% were filed by the girl's parents against her will.
The "Romeo-Juliet Law," named after Shakespeare's star-crossed lovers in Romeo and Juliet, originated in the United States as a close-in-age exemption to address the criminalization of consensual teenage intimacy under statutory rape statutes. It provides legal protection to young individuals engaging in mutual sexual activity, shielding the older partner from prosecution if the age difference falls within a specified threshold, typically 2-5 years, thereby preventing felony charges for what would otherwise be treated as offenses against minors.
As the court noted in its ruling, such a provision could resolve the "deadlock between empirical evidence, judicial opinion, and legislative reluctance" in India, where the age of consent remains fixed at 18 under POCSO, rendering even peer relationships prosecutable without regard for consent. The Law Commission of India, in its 283rd Report (2017), rejected lowering the consent age to 16 despite acknowledging miscarriages of justice in consensual cases, while at least 17 High Courts across the country have quashed such FIRs, alluding to the "biosocial dynamics" of adolescent relationships (Vijayalakshmi v. State, 2021).
By prioritizing the minor's testimony over rigid age thresholds, a Romeo-Juliet clause would contextualize exemptions, ensuring they apply only to consensual acts and exclude predatory or non-consensual scenarios, as emphasized in the Supreme Court's directive to balance child protection with teen autonomy.
Globally, the implementation of Romeo-Juliet laws varies by jurisdiction, reflecting tailored responses to cultural and legal contexts while maintaining safeguards against exploitation. In the United States, where the concept first gained traction, at least 43 states have adopted close-in-age exemptions to decriminalize sex between similar-aged teenagers (Cocca, 2004). For instance, Florida's 2007 law, explicitly dubbed the "Romeo and Juliet Law"- sets the consent age at 18 but allows 16- and 17-year-olds to engage consensually with partners up to 23 years old, averting felony charges.
Similarly, Georgia's 2006 provision permits a three-year age gap for minors aged 14-16, reducing statutory rape to a misdemeanor rather than a felony. In Canada, amendments to the Criminal Code in 2006 introduced exemptions for 14- and 15-year-olds with partners less than five years older (up to 19), and for 12- and 13-year-olds with partners under two years older (up to 14), focusing on preventing over-criminalization of peer interactions. Australia's Tasmania, with a consent age of 17, enacted age-similarity defenses in 2001, allowing those 15 and older to consent if the partner is no more than five years older.
Other nations demonstrate a mix of formal exemptions and practical adjustments. The Philippines raised its consent age from 12 to 16 in 2022, incorporating a provision for 16-year-olds to consent with partners within a three-year age gap, aiming to protect adolescent agency while addressing exploitation.
Japan maintains a national consent age of 13 but lacks a formal close-in-age exemption; however, local ordinances effectively raise it to 16-18 in practice, with no nationwide Romeo-Juliet equivalent. South Korea, with a consent age of 16, imposes strict criminal liability for activity with those below 16 and has no formal exemption, prioritizing deterrence over relational nuances.
These laws, while protective, carry limitations: exemptions hinge strictly on age gaps, if exceeded, prosecution follows regardless of consent and apply solely to mutual acts, leaving non-consensual offenses unshielded. Critics, including scholars Pitre and Lingam (2021), argue that an overemphasis on age may overlook the maturity of an adolescent's consent, advocating for primacy to the minor's testimony to ensure holistic justice.
The Supreme Court's insistence aligns with a growing judicial chorus, as seen in Allahabad High Court's Satish alias Chand v. State of U.P. (2024) and Delhi High Court's Sahil v. State NCT of Delhi (2024), which flagged how such cases lead to "young boys languishing in jails" over family objections to inter-caste or inter-faith teen romances.
By urging a clause that could exempt cases with age differences under 2-5 years, applicable to both minor-minor and minor-adult pairings where consent is verified, the bench seeks to curb the 30-40% frivolous FIRs in elopement scenarios, per NCRB trends, without diluting POCSO's safeguards.
Legal experts hail the suggestion as a pragmatic evolution, potentially aligning India's framework with global norms, while preserving POCSO's core against predatory offenses. Social media buzz, from Instagram reels to YouTube breakdowns, amplifies calls for reform.
Yet, implementation hurdles loom: defining "genuine" consent without revictimizing minors, ensuring gender neutrality, and integrating it via amendment without diluting safeguards. As the Law Ministry deliberates, potentially via a committee mirroring the 2012 POCSO consultations, this clause could redefine justice, transforming a punitive shield into a nuanced one that honors youthful agency without compromising child safety.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.