What is the Romeo–Juliet Clause under the POCSO Act?
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was enacted as a special legislation to safeguard children from sexual abuse, exploitation, and harassment. The Act adopts a strict liability framework, criminalising all sexual activities involving a child, defined as a person below eighteen years of age, irrespective of consent. While the objective of the Act is undoubtedly protective, its rigid application has, over time, generated concerns, particularly in cases involving consensual romantic relationships between adolescents.
In this context, the concept commonly referred to as the “Romeo–Juliet Clause” has gained prominence. Though not expressly provided under the POCSO Act, the Romeo–Juliet clause represents a judicially evolved doctrine aimed at preventing the misuse of stringent penal provisions against young persons engaged in consensual, age-proximate relationships.
Meaning of the Romeo–Juliet Clause
The term “Romeo–Juliet clause” originates from comparative criminal jurisprudence, particularly in jurisdictions such as the United States and Europe. It refers to a legal exception or mitigating principle that decriminalises or reduces punishment for consensual sexual activity between minors or between a minor and a young adult, provided the age difference is minimal and the relationship is voluntary and non-exploitative.
In the Indian context, the Romeo–Juliet clause is not statutorily recognised under the POCSO Act. However, Indian courts have increasingly acknowledged the necessity of a balanced interpretation of the Act to prevent its misuse in cases of adolescent romance, where the prosecutrix and accused are close in age and the relationship is consensual.
Statutory Framework of the POCSO Act
Definition of Child
Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines a “child” as any person below the age of eighteen years. The Act makes no distinction between minors of different age groups, thereby treating a sixteen-year-old adolescent and a six-year-old child alike for the purposes of criminal liability.
Consent Rendered Irrelevant
One of the defining features of the POCSO Act is that consent of the child is immaterial. Any form of sexual activity involving a child constitutes an offence, regardless of whether the act was consensual or initiated by the minor.
Mandatory Criminalisation
The Act mandates compulsory registration of FIR, investigation, and prosecution once an offence is disclosed. This rigid framework often results in criminal prosecution of young boys in consensual relationships, frequently at the instance of disapproving parents.
The Problem of Criminalising Adolescent Relationships
The blanket application of the POCSO Act has led to several unintended consequences:
Criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships
Misuse of law as a tool of parental or societal control
Psychological trauma and stigma for both parties
Overburdening of courts with cases lacking exploitative intent
Numerous studies and judicial observations have highlighted that a significant percentage of POCSO cases involve consensual romantic relationships rather than sexual abuse. This has prompted courts to seek judicial solutions within the existing statutory framework.
Judicial Evolution of the Romeo–Juliet Principle in India
Indian courts, while acknowledging the absence of an express statutory exemption, have adopted a purposive and constitutional interpretation of the POCSO Act to prevent injustice.
High Courts across the country have, in appropriate cases, exercised inherent powers under Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (before Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash proceedings where:
The relationship was consensual
The parties were close in age
No element of coercion, abuse, or exploitation was present
The judiciary has repeatedly observed that the legislative intent of POCSO is protection, not persecution.
Supreme Court’s Approach to Consensual Adolescent Relationships
Early Judicial Trend
Earlier Supreme Court decisions strictly adhered to the statutory mandate, reiterating that consent is irrelevant under POCSO. However, with the evolving understanding of child psychology, bodily autonomy, and constitutional morality, the Court has gradually recognised the need for contextual interpretation.
Supreme Court Analysis: State of UP v. Anurudh (2026)
In State of UP v. Anurudh, 2026 SC, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment addressing the issue of consensual adolescent relationships under the POCSO Act.
Facts of the Case
The case involved a consensual relationship between a minor girl aged slightly below eighteen and a young adult male. The relationship was voluntary, long-standing, and devoid of any element of force or exploitation. Criminal proceedings were initiated under the POCSO Act following parental objection.
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court made several significant observations:
The Court recognised that adolescents possess evolving capacities and emotional maturity, which cannot be ignored while interpreting penal statutes.
It observed that mechanical application of POCSO provisions in consensual relationships defeats the object of the Act.
The Court emphasised that the law must distinguish between predatory sexual abuse and consensual romantic involvement between age-proximate individuals.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that while the POCSO Act does not provide a statutory Romeo–Juliet clause, courts are not powerless. In appropriate cases, constitutional courts may intervene to prevent manifest injustice by:
Assessing the nature of the relationship
Evaluating age proximity
Examining voluntariness and absence of exploitation
The Court upheld the quashing of proceedings, observing that criminal law should not be used as a weapon to regulate adolescent sexuality or enforce social morality.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment marks a progressive shift in POCSO jurisprudence and provides authoritative guidance to subordinate courts. It reinforces the principle that child protection laws must operate in harmony with constitutional values, including dignity, personal liberty, and proportionality.
Constitutional Dimensions
The Romeo–Juliet principle finds support in constitutional jurisprudence:
Article 14 – Arbitrary application of law violates equality.
Article 19 – Freedom of expression includes emotional and romantic expression.
Article 21 – Right to life includes dignity, privacy, and autonomy.
Criminalising consensual adolescent relationships without examining context undermines these constitutional guarantees.
Countries Recognising the Romeo–Juliet Clause
Several jurisdictions across the world have expressly incorporated the Romeo–Juliet clause, or a close-in-age exemption, within their criminal laws to prevent the penalisation of consensual sexual relationships between adolescents.
The United States of America recognises such exemptions in multiple states, where consensual sexual activity between minors or between a minor and a young adult is not criminalised if the age difference falls within a prescribed range, commonly two to four years.
Canada, under Section 150.1 of the Criminal Code, provides a close-in-age defence permitting consensual sexual activity between minors and young persons, subject to age proximity and absence of authority or exploitation.
Germany adopts a contextual approach under its Criminal Code by criminalising sexual acts with minors only when exploitation or abuse of dependency is established.
Italy and Spain similarly allow consensual adolescent relationships within defined age thresholds, recognising the evolving capacity and autonomy of adolescents.
Australia and New Zealand have also incorporated age-proximity defences to ensure that youthful consensual relationships are not prosecuted under strict sexual offence laws.
These jurisdictions reflect a legislative acknowledgment that child protection laws must differentiate between predatory sexual abuse and consensual, non-exploitative adolescent relationships—a balance that Indian courts are now progressively achieving through judicial interpretation in the absence of an express statutory provision.
Need for Legislative Reform
Despite progressive judicial interpretation, the absence of a statutory Romeo–Juliet clause creates uncertainty. Several law reform bodies and child rights organisations have recommended:
Introducing a close-in-age exemption.
Differentiating between children and adolescents.
Providing sentencing discretion for courts.
Legislative reform would bring clarity, consistency, and fairness to the application of the POCSO Act.
Comparative Perspective
Many jurisdictions recognise that adolescents engage in consensual relationships and provide legal safeguards accordingly. A legislatively recognised Romeo–Juliet clause helps in:
Preventing misuse of criminal law.
Protecting young persons from lifelong stigma.
Focusing prosecutorial resources on genuine cases of abuse.
India’s evolving jurisprudence reflects a gradual movement towards this balanced approach.
Conclusion
The Romeo–Juliet clause, though absent from the text of the POCSO Act, has emerged as a judicially recognised principle aimed at preventing the misuse of a stringent child protection statute. The Supreme Court’s decision in State of UP v. Anurudh (2026) represents a crucial step in harmonising child protection with constitutional freedoms and social realities.
While the POCSO Act remains indispensable in combating child sexual abuse, its application must be nuanced, humane, and purposive. Until legislative reform is undertaken, the judiciary will continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring that the law protects children without unjustly criminalising consensual adolescent relationships. For individuals seeking clarity or legal assistance in criminal cases, timely consultation with Advocate Subhash Ahlawat remains crucial to ensuring that justice is pursued in its true spirit.
