A woman who had been placed in a child care home was held to be a major, and the same order asks the Law Commission to look again at how the POCSO Act treats minor couples.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: Allowing a habeas corpus petition by a man and a woman whom it held to be a major, the Allahabad High Court has recommended that the Law Commission examine amendments to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, in its application to minor couples. The Court observed that the legislature did not appear to have given sufficient weight to social realities, including illiteracy, when enacting the law, and directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Law Commission. [Petitioner v. State of U.P. and 4 Others]
The order was passed by a Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev.
The Age Question
No school-issued or municipal or panchayat birth certificate was on record. An ossification test estimated the woman’s age at about 18. Relying on Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Court held that she was a major. Since she said she wished to live with the man, it allowed the petition and permitted her to leave with him.
The petitioners, a man and a young woman, had eloped and had executed an affidavit dated 1 September 2025 declaring themselves husband and wife. The State and the woman’s family contended that she was a minor, and she was placed in a child care home after being recovered. The man is an accused in a pending POCSO case. Her identity is withheld in this report.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO FIR Over Marriage To Minor; Personal Law No Defence
Where The Court Saw Hardship
Strict application of the POCSO Act, the Court held, can cause injustice in some factual situations. On the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse, it said the principle could cause hardship “if this principle is applied in a purely pedantic manner”, and that the legislature should have given “sufficient regard” to “the social realities prevailing in India”. It added that “the law must remain dynamic and capable of rendering complete justice”.
The issue, it noted, “perhaps has already been raised before the legislature”, which had stayed silent on it, and families may be formed through “ignorance of the provisions of the POCSO Act”.
What The Law Commission Is Asked To Consider
The Court recommended that the Law Commission consider amendments to the provisions on minor couples, giving Special Judges adequate discretion to fix punishment in exceptional cases after considering the circumstances. It also asked the Commission to examine alternative punishments, including community service, so that families formed out of ignorance of the Act are not unnecessarily broken up, and to consider the burden on the State if the person who was the caregiver is imprisoned.
Separately, the Court called the state of the education system “a matter of serious concern”, stressing that the State must keep minors engaged in education until adulthood and provide vocational opportunities.
The Pending Criminal Case
The trial court in the pending POCSO case was directed not to rely on the Court’s factual observations in the habeas proceedings, and to decide the case strictly in accordance with law, on the evidence led and recorded at the trial. The allegations in that case are untested, the accused is presumed innocent, and this report expresses no view on the merits of the trial.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Case Details: Habeas corpus petition v. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Allahabad High Court; case number and date of order not stated in the source; party names withheld to protect the identity of the woman). Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev.
Appearances: Not reported.
If you know a child who needs help, CHILDLINE 1098 offers free, 24-hour support.