The Rajasthan High Court clarified that the POCSO Act aims to protect children from genuine sexual predators, not criminalise close-in-age teenage relationships. It stressed that the law should not be misused to target young adults in consensual bonds.
The Rajasthan High Court emphasized that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was not designed to criminalize consensual relationships among teenagers who are close in age.
In a ruling on January 12, Justice Anil Kumar Upman expressed concern over how teenagers aged 16 to 19 often engage in romantic relationships that are unjustly penalized under the POCSO Act, even when these relationships are innocent and devoid of any predatory sexual intent.
The Court stated,
“The POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from sexual predators and exploiters. It cannot be said that the legislative intent was to use this stringent law to persecute young adults involved in consensual, albeit socially unaccepted, relationships,”
Consequently, the Court urged the Central Government to amend the law so that consensual relationships between similarly aged teenagers do not face criminalization.
The Court added,
“There is a pressing need to bridge the gap between the protective intent of the POCSO Act and the sociological reality of adolescent autonomy. This Court urges the government to consider the introduction of a clause which grants exemption in such cases where the supposed perpetrator and the victim are in close proximity age … An exemption cause in this regard or a clause granting judiciary the discretion to adjudicate these cases looking at the particular facts and circumstances would grant the judiciary the necessary maneuverability to distinguish between predatory sexual abuse and consensual intimacy between adolescents,”
The Court further noted the growing issue that the POCSO Act does not clearly differentiate between consensual teenage relationships often termed “Romeo-Juliet” cases and those involving exploitative sexual abuse of minors.
It said,
“The law inadvertently creates a category of ‘statutory victims’ who do not perceive themselves as such. To ignore the salience of this trend is to overlook a systemic problem where the law, in its quest for absolute protection, inadvertently criminalizes adolescent autonomy,”
To illustrate its point, the Court referenced a case where the alleged victim of statutory sexual assault was just an hour away from turning 18 (the legal age of consent) when her partner was charged under the POCSO Act.
The Court remarked,
“To suggest that the character of an act undergoes a seismic legal transformation from a consensual private matter to a heinous, aggravated offence, within a span of sixty minutes, is to ignore the physical and mental reality of human development. When the law is applied with such clinical rigidity, it ceases to be an instrument of justice and becomes a tool of misuse,”
In its quest for absolute protection, (the POCSO Act) inadvertently criminalizes adolescent autonomy
Rajasthan High Court
These observations were made while the Court was quashing a case against a 19-year-old boy who eloped with a 17-year-old girl. Notably, the girl had consistently indicated during the investigation and trial that she had left home of her own will.
Her brother had filed the initial complaint that prompted the POCSO case; however, he later joined his sister in affirming that he did not oppose her request to dismiss the case.
Earlier, On January 12, the High Court dismissed the case. It questioned the application of serious provisions under the POCSO Act related to aggravated sexual assault when no allegations or medical evidence suggested any sexual intercourse between the accused and the alleged victim.
The Court determined that the prosecution was an abuse of the legal process, asserting that the case should never have gone to trial.
The Court stated,
“When the police invoke (POCSO Act provisions) mechanically against a young individual in such cases, the law is transformed from a shield for the vulnerable into a sword for prosecution purposes … The learned Special Judge appears to have acted as a mere post office for the prosecution, framing charges for a crime that has not been alleged or is supported by a single piece of evidence,”
Furthermore, the Court observed that treating a 17-year-old as lacking agency effectively denies her the right to her narrative.
It said,
“This systemic failure to account for adolescent maturity leads to a situation where the legal machinery becomes a tool for familial control and State-sponsored harassment, rather than a shield against sexual violence,”
It emphasized that while the POCSO Act aims to protect minors, it should not be applied indiscriminately in ways that harm the very youth it intends to protect.
The Court held,
“The human cost of such mechanical prosecution cannot be overstated. The petitioner, a mere youth of nineteen years, stands at the threshold of his life. To subject him to a trial for Aggravated Penetrative Assault, an offense carrying a minimum of twenty years of rigorous imprisonment, in the absence of even a shred of incriminating medical or ocular evidence, is to place his entire future at the altar of a rigid and unforgiving statutory interpretation … Rather than protecting society, such misplaced severity risks releasing a hardened and embittered individual back into the community after two decades, effectively destroying a life that could have been productive and law abiding … The law must not be so blind in its pursuit of protection that it becomes an engine of destruction for the very youth it seeks to govern,”
Rajasthan High Court stated,
“The law must not be so blind in its pursuit of protection that it becomes an engine of destruction for the very youth it seeks to govern.”
Advocate Prakhar Gupta represented the accused, while Advocate Amit Punia appeared for the State. Advocates Harshit Tiwari and Anindya Gupta represented the complainant.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
