POCSO and the case for a Romeo and Juliet clause

A recent judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Harmeet Singh v. GNCTD, has again underscored the need for India’s POCSO Act framework to be revisited. The case arose from an FIR, triggered by a hospital where the woman delivered a child. The man was 22 at the time of the alleged offence; the girl was 17. In quashing the FIR, what weighed with the Court was the fact that the girl was the legal victim, but she did not want the case to be pursued. The Court distinguished between a legal victim and a factual victim. It went a step further, cautioning that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to victimising the girl again, rather than protecting her, by destabilising her family, if the man were sent to prison under the POCSO Act.

This is not an isolated instance. In Prince Kumar Sharma v. GNCTD, the Delhi High Court, while refusing to quash an FIR under the same law, articulated the tension with unusual candour: “Seeing the victim with her infant child brings home that these proceedings are tied to the stability of a young family. At the same time, this is precisely the kind of matter in which the statutory framework of the POCSO Act sits uneasily with lived reality, and the tension between the two is stark.” In Prince Kumar Sharma, however, the Court was firm: a minor is not allowed to give consent under the POCSO Act and, therefore, there was no room to quash the case.

These decisions highlight a deeper structural issue. The POCSO Act is premised on a bright-line rule: anyone below 18 is incapable of giving legal consent. While this is a necessary safeguard against abuse, its blanket application often collapses distinctions between exploitative and consensual relationships.

The problem is compounded by the State’s shortcomings. In many of these cases, the girl’s dependence on the accused is not merely emotional but economic. The uncomfortable question that arises is this: why is the State unable to provide a viable support system for a minor mother and her child? In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court reduced a man’s sentence under POCSO while expressing its helplessness at the State’s failure to ensure the girl’s social security. When prosecution threatens to destabilise what little security exists, courts are forced into uneasy compromises.

Yet, any call for reform must proceed with caution. Not all apparent “consent” is meaningful. As the Delhi High Court noted in Saivan v. State, what appears to be voluntary participation by a minor may, in fact, be shaped by familial pressure, community norms, or internalised expectations. The law cannot afford to romanticise such situations.

Furthermore, the modern context introduces risks. The phenomenon of grooming – where a minor is gradually manipulated into a relationship – has become far more pervasive in the social media age. High-profile global scandals, such as the Jeffrey Epstein case, have sharpened public awareness of how consent can be manufactured. The current POCSO framework, however, does not distinguish between consensual peer relationships and those vitiated by subtle coercion or manipulation.

This is why the conversation around a ‘Romeo and Juliet’ clause has gained urgency. Such provisions, present in several jurisdictions, create a narrow exception for consensual relationships between individuals close in age, subject to carefully designed safeguards. They do not dilute the protective intent of statutory rape laws but refine their application to avoid unjust outcomes.

Designing such a framework would require balancing multiple, often competing, considerations. The need to respect genuine, informed consent where it exists; the imperative to guard against coercion, grooming, and structural inequalities; ensuring that minor mothers are not left at the mercy of those accused of POCSO Act offences; and above all, the commitment to preserving the core objective of POCSO: to shield minors from sexual exploitation.

This is not a task courts can – or should – undertake alone. Judicial decisions, however nuanced, operate within the constraints of existing legislation. What is needed is a considered legislative response. Parliament must engage with domain experts – legal scholars, child rights activists, psychologists, and sociologists – to craft a framework that is attentive to current social realities.

The recent judgments illuminate the gaps in a law enacted more than two decades ago. A narrowly tailored ‘Romeo and Juliet’ clause may not resolve every complexity. But it could mark an important step towards a legal system that protects without overreaching and punishes without losing sight of human context.

(The writer is a practising lawyer with expertise in disability rights and IP law, and is co-founder of Mission Accessibility. He wears more hats than he can himself sometimes count.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.