- By Raju Kumar
- Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:02 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
SC On POCSO Act: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to curb the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) by introducing a “Romeo-Juliet” clause to exempt “genuine adolescent relationships” from its stringent provisions. Taking note of the rampant misuse of the POCSO Act, the top court asserted the need for inclusion of the Romeo-Juliet law to treat cases of consensual sex where the girl could be a teenager.
The top court also held that the high courts cannot order mandatory medical age determination of victims at the stage of bail in cases under the POCSO Act.
What Is Romeo-Juliet Clause?
A "Romeo and Juliet clause" (or Romeo-Juliet Law) is a legal exemption to statutory rape laws that protects teenagers in consensual, close-in-age sexual relationships from prosecution, even if one partner is below the legal age of consent, recognizing the difference between such relationships and actual exploitation or abuse.
Protect The Children Of Today and The Leaders Of Tomorrow: SC
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh 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, however, termed the law the “most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow”.
The misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm – on the one end children are silenced by fear and their families are constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital can manipulate the law to their advantage, it said.
ALSO READ: 'Only For Institutional Areas': SC Clarifies On Removal Order In Stray Dogs Case
Setting aside an Allahabad High Court order to this effect, it 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,” it held.
What Is The Matter?
The case stems from a challenge by the Uttar Pradesh government against an Allahabad High Court order granting bail to an accused in a sexual assault case, apparently 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 top court, which set aside the high court judgement, however, left the part of the order granting bail as “undisturbed”. The verdict, authored by Justice Karol, faced the question of whether the high court, while dealing with bail pleas, could have issued directions mandating an age-determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the POCSO Act.
(With PTI inputs)