0.1 Context

0.1.1 On January 9, the Supreme Court, while hearing a bail matter, flagged misuse of the POCSO Act, 2012.
0.1.2 The Court urged the Union government to consider steps to curb misuse in consensual adolescent relationships.
0.1.3 The bench suggested examining a “Romeo–Juliet clause” to exempt non-exploitative teenage relationships.

0.2 What is the Romeo–Juliet Clause

0.2.1 It protects consensual sexual activity between adolescents close in age from criminal prosecution.
0.2.2 Named after Shakespeare’s play, it exists in jurisdictions like the United States.
0.2.3 Objective is to distinguish child abuse from adolescent intimacy.

0.3 POCSO Act: Protection vs Autonomy

0.3.1 POCSO defines a child as any person below 18 and does not recognise consent.
0.3.2 All sexual activity involving minors is automatically criminalised, regardless of consent.
0.3.3 The Court observed this has created a “grim societal chasm” due to frequent misuse.

0.4 Misuse of the Law

0.4.1 POCSO is often invoked by families opposing romantic relationships between adolescents.
0.4.2 It is used as a tool to control choice in inter-caste or inter-religious relationships.
0.4.3 This results in incarceration of young boys in non-coercive relationships.

0.5 Constitutional Concerns Raised

0.5.1 Blanket criminalisation violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.
0.5.2 Adolescents aged 16–18 possess evolving capacity for decision-making.
0.5.3 Treating all under-18s as incapable of consent ignores biological and social realities.

0.6 Demand for Reform

0.6.1 The demand to amend POCSO has intensified through PILs before the Supreme Court.
0.6.2 A “close-in-age” exception was proposed to protect consensual adolescent relationships.
0.6.3 This would prevent prosecution where both parties are minors and consent exists.

0.7 Government’s Stand: Status Quo

0.7.1 The Union government opposes lowering the age of consent or legislative exceptions.
0.7.2 It argues 18 years is a deliberate legislative choice to create a protective shield.
0.7.3 Exceptions may open loopholes for trafficking and abuse, according to the government.

0.8 Empirical Evidence on POCSO Cases

0.8.1 Study by Enfold Proactive Health Trust and UNICEF shows nearly 25% of cases were romantic.
0.8.2 Data from Maharashtra, Assam and West Bengal (2016–2020) confirms this trend.
0.8.3 Conviction rates are low as victims often testify in favour of the accused.

0.9 Health and Social Implications

0.9.1 Mandatory reporting under POCSO forces doctors to inform police of adolescent pregnancies.
0.9.2 Fear of prosecution deters adolescents from accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare.
0.9.3 This undermines public health objectives and adolescent welfare.