Consider Romeo-Juliet Clause In POCSO To Save Genuine Adolescent Relationships: SC To Centre

Last Updated:January 11, 2026, 21:52 IST

Supreme Court referred to certain instances, noting the the misuse of the POCSO law in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents.

File Photo of Supreme Court of India. (PTI)

Taking note of the rampant misuse of its stringent provisions, the Supreme Court has suggested the Union Government to consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet" clause in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) to protect genuine adolescent couples from harsh criminal action.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh made the observation while setting aside a series of directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in a bail plea in a POCSO case wherein it directed constitution of a medical board to determine the age of the victim.

“Considering that repeated judicial notice has been taken of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo-Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law, enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws, seek to settle scores, etc," the bench observed as reported by news agency PTI.

The bench, however, termed the law the “most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow".

The top court also held that the high courts cannot order mandatory medical age determination of victims at the stage of bail in cases under POCSO Act. It held that the High Court’s direction of medical age determination of victims at the stage of bail exceeded the jurisdiction under Section 439 (grant of bail) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The bench ruled that the high courts cannot use their bail jurisdiction to conduct “mini-trials" or issue mandatory investigative protocols that contradict existing laws.

“The determination of the victim’s age is a matter for trial, and the presumption which is accorded to the documents enumerated under the Section has to be rebutted there, for that is the appropriate forum to do so, not the bail court," it held.

The High Court had directed that in every POCSO case, police must conduct a medical test to determine the age of the victim at the very start of investigation and that bail courts could examine and even reject school or birth records if they found them doubtful.

The verdict, authored by Justice Karol, faced the question of whether the high court, while dealing with bail pleas, could have issued directions mandating an age-determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the POCSO Act.

“It is unquestionable that the high court is a constitutional court. However, in the instant case, the error of jurisdiction by the high court was in exercise of a statutory power and not under the Constitution…," it said.

“There is an additional aspect which, if the proposition as posited by the impugned judgment is upheld, would fall foul of. Such an aspect would be that a court, at the stage of bail, cannot conduct a mini-trial. This position is trite in law," it added.

The top court also referred to certain instances, noting the the misuse of the POCSO law in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents.

It said the POCSO Act is meant to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. But in many cases, it was being used as a weapon by families who oppose relationships between young people.

“Yet, when an instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion. Courts have, in many cases, sounded an alarm regarding this situation," it said.

The misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm – on the one end children are silenced by fear and their families are constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital can manipulate the law to their advantage, it said.

The bench also emphasised the ethical responsibility of lawyers to act as gatekeepers against frivolous or vindictive litigation, warning that unchecked misuse erodes public faith in the justice system.

(With inputs from agencies)

News india Consider Romeo-Juliet Clause In POCSO To Save Genuine Adolescent Relationships: SC To Centre

Read More