When Young Love Becomes a Crime: Why India Needs a Romeo–Juliet Clause in POCSO

  •   Fri, Jan 30 2026
  •   By Adv Juhi Damodar

January 30, 2026

Does POCSO criminalise consensual teenage relationships? Explore why India needs a Romeo–Juliet clause to protect adolescents without diluting child safety laws.

India’s child-protection laws were enacted with a clear and urgent purpose—to protect children from sexual abuse, exploitation, and violence. Yet, in practice, one such law is increasingly being used in a way that raises serious constitutional and social concerns.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) was never meant to criminalise adolescent love. However, its rigid structure today often treats consensual relationships between teenagers as serious sexual crimes. This disconnect between the law and adolescent reality has triggered growing concern across courts, legal circles, and civil society. 

WHAT IS A ROMEO–JULIET CLAUSE?

The term “Romeo–Juliet clause” is used globally to describe close-in-age legal exemptions that protect consensual adolescent relationships, though such a provision does not currently exist under Indian law.

A Romeo–Juliet clause is a limited legal exception found in many countries’ sexual offence laws. It protects consensual romantic or sexual relationships between adolescents who are close in age.

Importantly, such a clause does not legalise abuse or exploitation. It simply draws a clear line between:

  • Sexual predation, which deserves strict punishment, and
  • Age-proximate, consensual adolescent relationships, which do not warrant criminal prosecution.

The idea is simple: criminal law should punish harm—not normal adolescent development. 

HOW POCSO IS BEING MISUSED

Under POCSO, any sexual activity involving a person under 18 is treated as an offence, regardless of consent. This means that even when two teenagers willingly engage in a relationship, the law assumes exploitation.

In reality, many POCSO cases arise not from abuse, but from parental disapproval—often driven by concerns about caste, community, religion, or social status. What begins as a family conflict quickly escalates into a serious criminal case.

Young boys are arrested. Teenagers face incarceration. Careers, education, and reputations are destroyed—without any finding of coercion or harm.

When the power of the State is used to enforce private morality rather than prevent abuse, a protective law becomes a tool of punishment. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARADOX

This brings us to a troubling constitutional contradiction.

A law designed to protect children is now being used to punish adolescents for consensual choices. Treating a relationship between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old on par with sexual assault ignores proportionality, fairness, and lived reality.

Such prosecutions raise serious constitutional issues:

  • Article 14 (equality before law) is violated when vastly different conduct is treated the same.
  • Article 21 (life, liberty, dignity, and autonomy) is undermined when young people are jailed without harm or exploitation.
  • Prolonged trials and detention turn process itself into punishment. 

COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY RAISED RED FLAGS

Indian courts have consistently warned against the misuse of POCSO in consensual adolescent cases.

The Madras High Court, Delhi High Court, and others have observed that the Act is increasingly being invoked to criminalise youthful romance rather than protect children from abuse. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that POCSO was never intended to police adolescent relationships.

Most recently, the Supreme Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh v Anurudh and Another, acknowledged this structural problem. The Court noted that genuine adolescent relationships are being unnecessarily dragged into the criminal justice system and explicitly suggested that the government consider introducing a Romeo–Juliet clause to address this gap.

This observation is not merely advisory—it is a constitutional warning. 

HOW OTHER COUNTRIES HANDLE THIS ISSUE

India’s approach is unusually rigid when compared globally.

  • United States: Many states provide close-in-age exemptions to protect consensual teenage relationships.
  • Canada: The law allows consensual relationships between adolescents close in age, while strictly excluding exploitative or authority-based relationships.
  • Germany: Sexual activity is criminalised only when there is exploitation or abuse of vulnerability, not merely because of age.
  • Australia: Several states recognise age-proximity defences, balancing protection with realism.

Across jurisdictions, the focus is on harm, coercion, and power imbalance—not moral panic. 

A SENSIBLE PATH FORWARD FOR INDIA

Introducing a narrowly tailored Romeo–Juliet clause in Indian law would not weaken child protection. On the contrary, it would strengthen it.

Such a provision could:

  • Protect consensual relationships where adolescents are close in age
  • Exclude cases involving coercion, authority, trafficking, pornography, or abuse
  • Prevent automatic arrests and unnecessary incarceration
  • Preserve the seriousness of offences involving real exploitation

This approach ensures that POCSO remains a shield for children—not a weapon against them.

SAFEGUARDS, NOT SOCIAL PERMISSION

It is equally important to clarify what a Romeo–Juliet clause does not intend to do.

Such a provision must not be misunderstood as encouraging teenage pregnancy, early sexual activity, or casualisation of adolescent relationships. Nor should it be read as diminishing parental guidance, responsibility, or concern for a child’s future. The objective is not to normalise or promote adolescent sexual behaviour, but to prevent grave criminal consequences in cases where no sexual harm or exploitation exists.

What the proposed reform seeks to protect is consensual, age-proximate adolescent relationships from false or punitive criminal prosecution, particularly where criminal law is invoked to settle familial or social disapproval rather than to address abuse. It is a corrective against misuse—not a licence for conduct.

Equally crucial is the manner in which courts handle such cases. Any legal framework that requires a child to publicly assert “consent” in open court as a defence against prosecution is deeply problematic. It places an unfair psychological burden on the child, risks secondary trauma, and may inadvertently signal to actual offenders that consent can be manufactured or coerced to escape liability.

A well-designed Romeo–Juliet clause must therefore operate as a statutory filter at the threshold, preventing false or non-exploitative cases from entering the criminal justice system at all—rather than shifting the burden onto the child during trial. This ensures that genuine offenders are not emboldened, loopholes are not created, and the deterrent purpose of POCSO remains intact.

For parents, this distinction is vital. The reform does not weaken child safety; it strengthens it by ensuring that the law remains focused on real harm, real abuse, and real exploitation—while sparing children from unnecessary criminalisation that can irreversibly damage education, mental health, and future prospects.

WHY REFORM IS URGENT

Criminalising adolescence does not protect children—it controls them.
A child-protection law that ignores adolescent reality loses legitimacy and moral authority.

The Supreme Court has sounded the alarm. Courts cannot indefinitely repair legislative rigidity through case-by-case relief while young lives are irreversibly damaged.

PARLIAMENT MUST ACT.

Delay is no longer neutral—it is harmful.

Protecting children does not require punishing consensual teenage relationships. A well-designed Romeo–Juliet clause would restore balance, uphold constitutional values, and ensure that POCSO targets what it was meant to target—sexual abuse, not young love. 

A Message to Parents:

For parents, safeguarding a child’s character, safety, and future is a sacred responsibility. Across cultures and traditions, families are built on guidance, discipline, and moral grounding passed from one generation to the next. A narrowly framed Romeo–Juliet clause does not dilute these values, nor does it encourage early relationships or irresponsible behaviour. It recognises that while families guide children with wisdom and restraint, the criminal law must be reserved for real harm, not youthful error. In moments of fear, social pressure, or misunderstanding, invoking the criminal justice system can expose children to consequences that far outlast the situation itself—damaging education, emotional stability, and social standing in ways that are often irreversible. True protection lies in proportion, compassion, and discernment—values deeply rooted in our cultural and moral traditions. A law that distinguishes exploitation from consensual adolescence does not weaken family authority; it strengthens it by ensuring that children are corrected, supported, and guided—without being permanently marked by the stigma of criminal prosecution.

 

 

 

 
By Adv Juhi Damodar
Adv Juhi Damodar is an advocate and chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, Udupi district. Her work focuses on child protection, dignity-based justice, and trauma-informed legal responses under the JJ and POCSO frameworks. Email: advapexofficial@gmail.com
To submit your article / poem / short story to Daijiworld, please email it to news@daijiworld.com mentioning 'Article/poem submission for daijiworld' in the subject line. Please note the following:

  • The article / poem / short story should be original and previously unpublished in other websites except in the personal blog of the author. We will cross-check the originality of the article, and if found to be copied from another source in whole or in parts without appropriate acknowledgment, the submission will be rejected.
  • The author of the poem / article / short story should include a brief self-introduction limited to 500 characters and his/her recent picture (optional). Pictures relevant to the article may also be sent (optional), provided they are not bound by copyright. Travelogues should be sent along with relevant pictures not sourced from the Internet. Travelogues without relevant pictures will be rejected.
  • In case of a short story / article, the write-up should be at least one-and-a-half pages in word document in Times New Roman font 12 (or, about 700-800 words). Contributors are requested to keep their write-ups limited to a maximum of four pages. Longer write-ups may be sent in parts to publish in installments. Each installment should be sent within a week of the previous installment. A single poem sent for publication should be at least 3/4th of a page in length. Multiple short poems may be submitted for single publication.
  • All submissions should be in Microsoft Word format or text file. Pictures should not be larger than 1000 pixels in width, and of good resolution. Pictures should be attached separately in the mail and may be numbered if the author wants them to be placed in order.
  • Submission of the article / poem / short story does not automatically entail that it would be published. Daijiworld editors will examine each submission and decide on its acceptance/rejection purely based on merit.
  • Daijiworld reserves the right to edit the submission if necessary for grammar and spelling, without compromising on the author's tone and message.
  • Daijiworld reserves the right to reject submissions without prior notice. Mails/calls on the status of the submission will not be entertained. Contributors are requested to be patient.
  • The article / poem / short story should not be targeted directly or indirectly at any individual/group/community. Daijiworld will not assume responsibility for factual errors in the submission.
  • Once accepted, the article / poem / short story will be published as and when we have space. Publication may take up to four weeks from the date of submission of the write-up, depending on the number of submissions we receive. No author will be published twice in succession or twice within a fortnight.
  • Time-bound articles (example, on Mother's Day) should be sent at least a week in advance. Please specify the occasion as well as the date on which you would like it published while sending the write-up.

Leave a Comment

Title: When Young Love Becomes a Crime: Why India Needs a Romeo–Juliet Clause in POCSO



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.