Romeo-juliet Clause And Consensual Adolescent Relationships: Supreme Court Judgment
1. INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India recently made an important observation about the need for a “Romeo-Juliet clause” in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court did not itself create such a clause but urged the Central Government to consider introducing one into the law. The suggestion arises from growing concerns that POCSO’s strict provisions are sometimes misused to criminalise consensual relationships between adolescents who are close in age.
2. BACKGROUND: POCSO ACT AND ITS PURPOSE
The POCSO Act was enacted to protect children (defined as persons below 18 years of age) from sexual offences, including sexual assault, harassment, and exploitation. Under current law, any sexual activity involving a person under 18—whether consensual or not—is treated as a criminal offence, and consent by a minor is legally irrelevant. This means even voluntary relationships between teenagers can attract prosecution.
3. FACTS AND JUDICIAL CONTEXT
The Supreme Court’s remarks came in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Another (2026), a case concerning the proper scope of bail and age determination procedures under POCSO. While deciding the appeal, the Court also noted systemic problems with how POCSO is being applied in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships.
In that case, the Court set aside certain High Court directions that had mandated medical age tests at the bail stage, holding that such measures were inconsistent with statutory procedures. Beyond procedural law, the bench expressed deep concern about how POCSO is being misused in situations where adolescents of similar age voluntarily engage in relationships.
4. WHAT IS THE ROMEO-JULIET CLAUSE?
The term “Romeo-Juliet clause” comes from legal systems in several foreign jurisdictions (notably parts of the United States), where close-in-age exemptions are built into statutory rape laws. Such provisions are designed to exclude consensual sexual activity involving minors who are near each other in age from automatic criminal prosecution, thereby avoiding the harsh consequences of treating such acts the same as exploitative abuse.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court described this concept and suggested that a tailored Romeo-Juliet clause could exempt “genuine adolescent relationships” from the strict operation of the POCSO Act, while still preserving the Act’s protective purpose against abuse and exploitation.
5. SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
The Supreme Court’s bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh made several key observations:
i. Misuse of POCSO: The Court noted that POCSO, despite its noble intent, is increasingly misused by families to oppose adolescent relationships or to settle personal scores, with young individuals being criminally prosecuted even when the relationship is consensual.
ii. Proportionality and Purpose: The Court warned that treating consensual teen relationships as serious criminal offences under POCSO may undermine the law’s purpose, turning a protective statute into a punitive tool for juveniles in consensual situations.
iii. Suggestion for Legislative Reform: Rather than judicially creating an exemption, the Supreme Court directed that its judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice so the government can consider introducing a Romeo-Juliet clause in the POCSO Act. Such a clause could differentiate between exploitative abuse and genuine adolescent consent.
The Court was careful to emphasize that any reform should be carefully tailored so as not to weaken the law’s core objective of protecting children.
6. LEGAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
This observation by India’s highest court has broad implications:
i. Balance Between Protection and Autonomy: It highlights the tension between protecting minors from sexual abuse and recognising consensual decision-making among adolescents close in age.
ii. Misuse of Criminal Law: By flagging misuse of POCSO in consensual contexts, the Court acknowledged that criminalising adolescent relationships can lead to unjust outcomes, including arrests, prolonged pretrial detention, and social stigma for young people.
iii. Call for Legislative Reform: The Court’s suggestion pushes the issue into the legislative domain, where Parliament can consider whether a Romeo-Juliet clause should be incorporated into the POCSO Act to mitigate these challenges.
7. CONCLUSION
Although the Supreme Court of India did not itself enact a Romeo-Juliet exemption, its judgment represents a significant judicial acknowledgment that current criminal law may need reform to better distinguish exploitative abuse from consensual adolescent relationships. The Court’s call for a Romeo-Juliet clause under the POCSO Act reflects a broader legal and social debate about consent, autonomy, child protection, and proportionality in criminal justice.
This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.
Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.
