The Supreme Court observed that families frequently misuse the POCSO Act against consensual adolescent relationships. Flagging systemic concerns, the Court suggested introducing a “Romeo–Juliet clause” to prevent criminalisation of genuine youthful consent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court’s decision setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s directions mandating medical age determination of victims in all POCSO cases at the investigation stage marks a crucial development in Indian criminal jurisprudence. The ruling clarifies the scope of bail jurisdiction, reinforces the statutory hierarchy under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and draws a firm line against judicial overreach in bail proceedings.
This case analysis examines the legal issues, judicial reasoning, and long-term implications of the judgment, particularly for POCSO investigations and bail adjudication.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered in Uttar Pradesh alleging the abduction of a minor girl, with offences invoked under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
While the trial court rejected bail, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In doing so, the High Court issued general directions requiring:
- Medical examination for age determination of victims at the beginning of the investigation in all POCSO cases
- Bail courts to attach overriding evidentiary value to medical age reports
- Medical opinion to prevail over school or birth records in appropriate cases
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged these directions before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, can issue general directions governing investigation procedures in POCSO cases
- Whether mandatory medical age determination at the inception of investigation is consistent with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
- Whether the age determination of a victim can be conclusively examined at the bail stage
Statutory Framework: Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, establishes a clear and mandatory hierarchy for age determination:
- Documentary proof, such as matriculation or school certificates
- Birth certificates issued by statutory authorities
- Medical age determination tests are only used as a measure of last resort
The provision reflects legislative intent to avoid unnecessary medical testing, recognising its margin of error and invasive nature.
Court Reasoning and Analysis
1. Limits of Bail Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court emphasised that although High Courts possess wide constitutional powers, their authority while deciding bail applications is circumscribed by statute. Section 439 CrPC empowers courts only to decide whether an accused should be released pending trial.
“The constitutional power cannot overshadow the statutory power, enlarging its scope beyond what has been envisaged by the statute.”
By issuing binding directions on age determination and investigation practices, the High Court effectively stepped outside the scope of its bail jurisdiction. The Supreme Court characterised this as an exercise undertaken without jurisdiction, rendering the directions legally unsustainable.
2. Medical Age Determination Cannot Be Routine
The Court rejected the High Court’s assumption that medical age testing should be the default method in POCSO cases. Such an approach, the Bench held, directly contradicts Section 94 of the JJ Act.
Medical tests are not inherently superior to documentary evidence and cannot displace statutory preference. The judgment reinforces that legislative hierarchy cannot be judicially inverted, even in the name of systemic efficiency.
The Court categorically held:
“A medical determination of age cannot be resorted to as a matter of course, much less mandated.”
3. Age Determination Is a Matter for Trial
A critical aspect of the ruling is the Court’s warning against transforming bail hearings into mini-trials. While bail courts may consider documents for a prima facie assessment, they cannot adjudicate their authenticity or evidentiary value.
“The determination of the age of the victim is a matter for trial… not the bail Court.”
The correctness of school certificates, birth records, or other age-related documents must be examined during trial through evidence and cross-examination—not during bail proceedings.
Legal Principle Laid Down:
- High Courts cannot issue general investigative directions while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC
- Mandatory medical age determination in POCSO cases violates the statutory scheme of Section 94 of the JJ Act
- Age determination of a victim is an evidentiary issue to be decided at trial, not at the bail stage
ALSO READ: POCSO FIR Disclosure: Delhi High Court Stays Proceedings Against BJP Spokesperson
The Supreme Court:
- Allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh
- Set aside the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in the present case and in Aman @ Vansh v. State of U.P. and Monish v. State of U.P.
- Held that the High Court acted coram non judice in issuing such directions
- Clarified that the bail already granted to the accused would remain undisturbed
The Supreme Court acknowledged concerns surrounding the misuse of the POCSO Act, especially in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships. While reaffirming the protective intent of the statute, the Court recognised that its rigid application can sometimes lead to injustice.
The Court suggested that the legislature consider mechanisms such as:
- A “Romeo and Juliet” exception for consensual relationships between adolescents
- Safeguards against malicious or retaliatory prosecution
This observation, though not binding, carries substantial persuasive value for future reform.
Case Title:
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10656 of 2025 (2026 INSC 47)
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On POCSO