Supreme Court Revisits POCSO Act’s Impact on Teenage Relationships

The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, deliberated on the application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) in instances involving teenagers engaged in consensual relationships. The judicial bench, comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan, expressed concerns over the tendency of parents to initiate criminal proceedings to uphold their perceived ‘honour’ when their teenage daughters elope with partners.

Justice Nagarathna remarked on the challenges of differentiating between cases of genuine sexual exploitation and those involving teenage experimentation. “The age group of 15-18 is notably vulnerable and exploratory. Does every such case warrant classification under POCSO?” the bench queried.

This inquiry arose during the suo motu hearing of a case focused on adolescent privacy rights. The Supreme Court had taken up the matter following a contentious judgment by the Calcutta High Court, which advised adolescent girls to suppress their sexual urges. The apex court subsequently annulled this High Court ruling.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan provided updates on the case that triggered the Calcutta High Court’s decision. “This involved a minor who eloped with a 25-year-old. The specific case was resolved amicably, with a court-appointed committee and social workers involved. A report criticized systemic flaws in handling POCSO cases,” Divan explained. She emphasized the POCSO Act’s provision for rehabilitation measures for minors.

The bench pondered whether the case was a simple elopement or a kidnapping scenario, with Divan clarifying that the young woman desired to be with her partner and had a child with him. The court highlighted the misuse of the POCSO Act, noting that parents often press charges to protect their family honor. “In many cases, when 16-18-year-olds form relationships and elope, parents resort to criminal charges. We find ourselves having to acquit,” the court observed.

Divan stressed the need for a preventive system to address these issues, noting, “The girl is now settled with her husband and content. The broader challenge is implementing measures for adolescent welfare and child protection.” She cited cases where 17-18-year-olds face incarceration, advocating for early sensitization and comprehensive solutions proposed by the Union government.

The court reflected on the historical context, acknowledging that such relationships existed even before the legal age of consent was raised from 16 to 18 in 2012. “These situations predate the 2012 amendment; child marriages happened before. The legal change made them unlawful,” the bench remarked.

To address these concerns, the Union’s counsel suggested incorporating adolescent education and POCSO awareness from a young age across educational curriculums. Divan further proposed a dashboard for tracking POCSO cases. The court pointed out that High Courts already monitor child rights issues, questioning the necessity for Union government involvement.