INTRODUCTION
Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh, in recent post judgement suggested the Union Government to introduce a Romeo-Juliet clause in the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to safeguard the genuine consensual adolescent couples from the criminal procedure. This clause will act as a legal exception in age of consent laws which decriminalizes mutually agreed activity between minor or young person close in age or having minimum age difference (usually 2-5 years), thus preventing their prosecution for statutory rape. The Supreme Court ordered the judgement copy to be circulated to the Union Law Secretary to take steps to prohibit the repeated abuse of POCSO.
ORIGIN OF ROMEO-JULIET CLAUSE
This clause is named Romeo-Juliet clause after Shakespeare’s famous play Romeo and Juliet, which was based on a romantic relationship between two young lovers. This law is designed in US to prevent consensual teen relationship from criminal charges. This law differs across states.
EXAMPLE OF COUNTRIES HAVING ROMEO JULIET CLAUSE AND AGE OF CONSENT
- USA – 16 to 18 years
- UK – 18 years
- Italy – 14 years
- Canada – 16 years
PURPOSE OF ROMEO JULIET LAWS
Romeo-Juliet clause does not lower the age of consent but provide legal shield for the relationship of adolescent, consensual in nature and the age gap between them is minimum.
- Safeguard relationships of teenagers – The law acknowledges difference between mutually agreed adolescent relations and criminal misconduct.
- Preventing lifetime registration – Ensures decision made during adolescence doesn’t ruin the future of the person.
- Legal fairness – Prevents misuse of statutory rape laws, in India it will help in preventing misuse of POCSO Act.
- Psychological and Social protection – By safeguarding teens by exempting consensual adolescent relationship, this law will help in reducing the psychological and emotional stress associated with wrongfully targeted as sex offender.
JUDICIAL ALARM OVER MISUSE OF POCSO ACT
The court addressed that it had repeatedly come across the abuse of POCSO and asked the Union Government to ‘Curb this menace’. Justice Sanjay Karol mentioned that “When an instrument of such noble and, one may even say, basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion. Courts have in many cases sounded alarm regarding this situation.” Misuse of POCSO, illustrates how a protective law can be transformed into a instrument for punishment.
The misuse of POCSO is evident from the following factual aspect repeatedly noted by the Courts:
1) Misrepresentation of Victim’s age – Age of victim is falsely misrepresented by manipulating school records and office just to claim victim is under 18 and is a minor so that they can attract stringent provisions and punishment given in POCSO Act, 2015.
In the case law Aman @ Vansh v. State of UP & Ors., the victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 16 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.
2) Criminalization of Consensual adolescent relationship – The families of the adolescent couple file POCSO case against the mutually agreed relationship, thus criminalizing the relationship despite no exploitation, coercion or abuse.
3) Using POCSO Act as a tool for revenge – The act meant to protect the children, is sometimes misapplied just for the sake of personal revenge and disputes, thus inverting justice.
4) Privilege differences creating social chasm – Privileged, literate individuals manipulate the law using monetary capital, whereas the genuine victim from poor background remain silenced.
CASE JUDGMENT AND POST-SCRIPT
On 9 January 2026 the judgement was based on an appeal filed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & anr. Crl. No. 10656 of 2025 against Allahabad High Court. In this case Allahabad High Court granted interim bail [The power conferred to High Court under Section 439 of CrPC (Special powers of High Court or Court of session to grant bail)] to the accused on the ground that there were wide inconsistency in the age of victim, however, the High Court ordered the State to conduct medical age determination examination, including ossification test (determining a person’s age by analysing his bones). The Supreme Court held that High Court cannot order mandatory medical age determination of victim at the stage of bail under POCSO Act.
The Supreme Court also held that High Court’s direction to conduct a mandatory medical test at the initial stage of investigation contravenes the Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which lays down the rules for presumption and determination of age under clause 2. It clearly provides the determination of age shall be based on documentary evidence such as date of birth certificate from the school, or matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board, or birth certificate given by a corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat, and only in the absence of such documents, the age can be determined through medical examination.
Supreme Court also cited the case law Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013, for determining age. In this case the Court followed hierarchy of evidence to determine the age and thus established clear methodologies for age determination under the Juvenile Justice rules, 2007.
POSTSCRIPT
After the judgement court gave its postscript, in which they observed that the POCSO Act was used as a weapon against the young couples. The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to curb this menace and suggested them to introduce the Romeo-Juliet clause in POCSO, which will exempt the genuine adolescent relationships and will decriminalizes the consensual activity between minors or young couple with minimum wage gap, thus preventing prosecution for statutory rape.
CONCLUSION
Romeo Juliet clause originated from United States is designed to safeguard consensual teen relationship and preventing criminal charges. Many Countries like USA, UK, Italy, etc. has the Romeo-Juliet clause and particular age of consent. India does not have this law, but the Supreme Court has suggested to introduce Romeo-Juliet clause in POCSO act since they had repeatedly come across the misuse of POCSO provisions, and which eventually is leading to societal difference. Thus, to protect the misuse of the act and decriminalize the consensual activity between adolescents and preventing prosecution for statutory rape. The Supreme Court also addressed that a medical examination for determining age cannot be done at the stage of bail under POCSO Act, and also for determining age, the procedure mentioned in section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
References-
- The HINDU – https://share.google/tr4cpAjMRos4NEkpH
- Law Trend – https://share.google/nNU43ukuamgCRdPKw
- POCSO Act, 2012 – https://share.google/xfIetSnCMAv1PSYUh
- Indian Kanoon – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127737197/ (State of UP v. Anurudh & Anr. , Crl. No. 10656 of 2025)
- Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2148
AUTHOR – AKANKSHA CHATURVEDI, 2ND YEAR LAW STUDENT, AMITY UNIVERSITY, GWALIOR.
READ OUR OTHER ARTICLES: MADHYA PRADESH’S FIRST JOHN DOE (ASHOK KUMAR) ORDER – J.P. Associates