NEW DELHI<\/em>: The Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong> has raised concerns over the use of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/strong>, in cases involving consensual relationships between teenagers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan<\/strong> made the observations while hearing a suo motu matter concerning the privacy, protection and well-being of adolescents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the POCSO Act<\/strong><\/a> was enacted to protect children from sexual assault, abuse and exploitation<\/strong>. However, many cases before courts arise after teenagers enter into relationships or leave their homes together and their parents later initiate criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Questioning whether every such case should automatically become a POCSO prosecution, the Bench observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “How does the State prevent the elopement of a girl and a boy? POCSO is sexual assault and exploitation of children. 15-18 is a vulnerable age. Age of experimentation. Question is, does it really become a POCSO case?”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The issue arose from proceedings connected with a Calcutta High Court judgment involving a minor who had eloped with a 25-year-old man<\/strong>. The Supreme Court had earlier set aside the High Court\u2019s controversial remarks concerning adolescent girls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the hearing, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan<\/strong> informed the Court that the individual dispute had largely ended. The girl wanted to remain with the man<\/strong> and had also had a child with him. A committee and social workers had examined the matter and submitted a report highlighting failures in the handling of POCSO cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench then referred to the wider pattern of cases involving teenagers between sixteen and eighteen years. It observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “16-18 they develop a relationship and go away. Parents to protect their honour fasten criminal liability. We have to acquit.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court\u2019s remarks indicate concern that criminal law may sometimes be used because parents disapprove of a relationship rather than because there is an allegation of sexual exploitation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n At present, every person below eighteen years is treated as a child under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act<\/strong>. The consent of a minor is not legally recognised. Therefore, even a relationship described as voluntary may still result in prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also noted that adolescent relationships existed even before the age of consent was raised from sixteen to eighteen years in 2012<\/strong>. The Bench observed that when the legal age became eighteen, relationships involving younger persons began attracting criminal liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The hearing also focused on practical reforms. The Union government referred to graded POCSO awareness and adolescent education from Class 6 onwards<\/strong>. Divan stressed the need for sensitisation, rehabilitation and stronger child-protection systems<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A proposal for central monitoring of POCSO cases was also discussed. The Court observed that High Courts and State authorities already have child-rights committees and monitoring mechanisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, the Supreme Court has not reduced the age of consent, diluted the POCSO Act or created any legal exception for consensual teenage relationships<\/strong>. The present legal position remains unchanged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The observations only highlight the need to examine whether the law should distinguish between cases of coercion and exploitation and voluntary relationships involving adolescents who are close in age. Any such exception would require legislative action by Parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n