The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is not meant to criminalise consensual relationships between teenagers who are close in age, cautioned the Rajasthan High Court recently.

In the January 12 ruling, Justice Anil Kumar Upman flagged concern that teenagers in the 16-19 year age bracket often form romantic relationships that are criminalised under the POCSO Act, even if they are innocent relationships without any predatory sexual intent.

“The POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from sexual predators and exploiters. It cannot be said that the legislative intent was to use this stringent law to persecute young adults involved in consensual, albeit socially unaccepted, relationships,” the Court added.

The Court, therefore, called on the Central government to bring about changes in the law so that consensual relationships between teenagers who are close in age are not criminalised.

“There is a pressing need to bridge the gap between the protective intent of the POCSO Act and the sociological reality of adolescent autonomy. This Court urges the government to consider the introduction of a clause which grants exemption in such cases where the supposed perpetrator and the victim are in close proximity age ... An exemption cause in this regard or a clause granting judiciary the discretion to adjudicate these cases looking at the particular facts and circumstances would grant the judiciary the necessary maneuverability to distinguish between predatory sexual abuse and consensual intimacy between adolescents," the Court said.

It noted that there has been a growing concern that the POCSO Act fails to distinguish between consensual relationships between teenagers - often referred to as "Romeo-Juliet" cases - and cases involving the predatory sexual exploitation of children.

"The law inadvertently creates a category of 'statutory victims' who do not perceive themselves as such ... To ignore the salience of this trend is to overlook a systemic problem where the law, in its quest for absolute protection, inadvertently criminalizes adolescent autonomy," it added.

To drive home the point, the Court also recounted a case where the alleged victim of statutory sexual assault was only an hour away from turning 18 years old (legal age of consent) when her partner was booked in a POCSO case.

"To suggest that the character of an act undergoes a seismic legal transformation from a consensual private matter to a heinous, aggravated offence, within a span of sixty minutes, is to ignore the physical and mental reality of human development. When the law is applied with such clinical rigidity, it ceases to be an instrument of justice and becomes a tool of misuse," the Court remarked.

The Court made these observations while quashing a criminal case filed against a 19‑year‑old boy for eloping with a 17‑year‑old girl. Notably, the girl had repeatedly stated, at several stages of the investigation and trial, that she had left home voluntarily.

Her brother had filed the criminal complaint that led to the registration of the POCSO case. Later, the brother joined his sister in stating that he did not object to the accused teenager's plea to quash the POCSO case.

The High Court on January 12 quashed the case.

It questioned how stringent provisions under the POCSO Act dealing with aggravated penetrative sexual assault were invoked in this case, when there was no allegation or medical evidence to indicate any sexual intercourse between the accused boy and the alleged victim.

The Court held that the prosecution in this matter was an abuse of the legal process and that the case should not have proceeded to trial.

"When the police invoke (POCSO Act provisions) mechanically against a young individual in such cases, the law is transformed from a shield for the vulnerable into a sword for prosecution purposes ... The learned Special Judge appears to have acted as a mere post office for the prosecution, framing charges for a crime that has not been alleged or is supported by a single piece of evidence,” the Court stated.

The Court also observed that treating a 17‑year‑old as a person without agency effectively denies her right to her own narrative.

"This systemic failure to account for adolescent maturity leads to a situation where the legal machinery becomes a tool for familial control and State-sponsored harassment, rather than a shield against sexual violence," said the Court.

The Court added that while the POCSO Act aims to protect children, it should not be applied blindly, in a way that harms the youth it is meant to safeguard.

“The human cost of such mechanical prosecution cannot be overstated. The petitioner, a mere youth of nineteen years, stands at the threshold of his life. To subject him to a trial for Aggravated Penetrative Assault, an offense carrying a minimum of twenty years of rigorous imprisonment, in the absence of even a shred of incriminating medical or ocular evidence, is to place his entire future at the altar of a rigid and unforgiving statutory interpretation … Rather than protecting society, such misplaced severity risks releasing a hardened and embittered individual back into the community after two decades, effectively destroying a life that could have been productive and law abiding ... The law must not be so blind in its pursuit of protection that it becomes an engine of destruction for the very youth it seeks to govern," held the Court.

Advocate Prakhar Gupta represented the accused.

Advocate Amit Punia appeared for the State.

Advocates Harshit Tiwari and Anindya Gupta represented the complainant.