SC asks Centre to introduce 'Romeo-Juliet' clause to exempt 'genuine adolescent relationships'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to introduce a “Romeo-Juliet” clause to exempt “genuine adolescent relationships” from its stringent provisions, after noting rampant misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh also declared that the high courts cannot order mandatory medical age determination of victims at the stage of bail in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 

The bench said, “Considering that repeated judicial notice has been taken of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo-Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws, seek to settle scores, etc."

The bench, nevertheless, found the law as the “most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow”.    

Setting aside an Allahabad High Court order, the court held that the high court’s direction of medical age determination of victims at the stage of bail exceeded the jurisdiction under Section 439 (grant of bail) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).   

The bench ruled that the high courts cannot use their bail jurisdiction to conduct "mini-trials" or issue mandatory investigative protocols that contradict existing laws.   

“The determination of the victim’s age is a matter for trial, and the presumption which is accorded to the documents enumerated under the Section has to be rebutted there, for that is the appropriate forum to do so, not the bail court,” said.    

The matter arose out of a challenge by the Uttar Pradesh government against an Allahabad High Court order granting bail to an accused in a sexual assault case, involving a minor girl.    

While granting bail, the high court issued a slew of directions, including that in every case under the POCSO Act, police must conduct a medical age-determination test at the outset.    

The court, which set aside the high court judgement, however, left the part of the order granting bail as “undisturbed”.Justice Karol, who authored the judgment said the high court, while dealing with bail pleas, could not have issued directions mandating an age-determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the POCSO Act.   

 “It is unquestionable that the high court is a constitutional court. However, in the instant case, the error of jurisdiction by the high court was in exercise of a statutory power and not under the Constitution,” it said.