Published On: June 4th 2026
Authored By: Harshita Wadhwa
Maharaja Surajmal Institute
Abstract
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 aims to provide a robust legal framework for protecting children under 18 years of age from any kind of sexual offence. It criminalises all kinds of sexual activity with a minor, irrespective of the consent of the minor. Though it aimed at preventing children from sexual exploitation, its non-recognition of consent under the Act has also criminalised and punished many non-exploitative but romantic acts between consensual adolescents. This rigid legal position has often posed criminal liabilities and has subjected young individuals to harsh punishments, even for consensual conduct.
Such criminalisation of consensual acts has led to a debate about adolescent autonomy and their fundamental rights under Article 21, relating to privacy, autonomy, dignity and personal liberty. This article examines the statutory framework under POCSO and the difference between the real motive behind the enactment of the Act (that is, protection from sexual exploitation) and the growing concerns about the criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships. It also suggests reforms and policy developments aimed at achieving the real motive of the Act, while ensuring adolescent autonomy and dignity.
Introduction
Adolescence refers to the transitional phase between childhood and adulthood, in which the child goes through various psychological, emotional and physical developments. At this phase, young individuals prefer privacy and autonomy in their lives. They develop emotional attachments and are often involved in romantic relationships. In present times, adolescent romantic relationships have become a social reality that cannot be ignored.
This evolving autonomy, however, contradicts with the POCSO Act because of its non-recognition of consent. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012[1] is a legislation which aims to protect children against any kind of sexual exploitation and abuse. This Act is gender-neutral in nature and aims for the healthy development of children.
In cases registered under POCSO, it has been noticed that many arise from consensual relationships between adolescents or involving adolescents. Courts encounter several cases where family members allege offences under the Act due to disapproval of the relationship or due to social stigmas. The non-recognition of consent under the Act often leads to criminal liability even for acts done with consent, and a significant rise of such cases has led to a debate about the criminalisation of consensual romantic relationships and the real motive behind the Act, that is, protection from sexual exploitation.
Legal Framework and Protective Approach of POCSO
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came into force on 14 November 2012. This Act defines a “child” as “any person below the age of 18 years.” It was enacted with an aim to protect children from all kinds of sexual exploitation. Sexual exploitation under the Act includes all forms of sexual offences such as sexual assault, sexual harassment, child abuse, pornography, and related conduct. In 2019, the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India[2] held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is a gender-neutral legislation and applies to all children.
Under this Act, the consent of a minor is not recognised and is legally irrelevant. Thus, any kind of sexual activity with a child, that is, with a person below 18 years of age, is treated as an offence under the Act. The strict liability nature of the Act reflects its intent to prioritise protection over autonomy. This approach is based on the belief that a person below 18 years of age lacks the maturity to make informed decisions, and offences committed against minors are dealt with very strict punishments.
In 2018, the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India[3] mandated fast-tracked trials, establishment of child-friendly courts, and strict monitoring to ensure speedy justice in POCSO cases. To ensure the best interests of the child who is a victim of sexual exploitation, the Act provides for establishment of Special Courts and measures such as in-camera trials and assistance from support persons, so that trials are conducted in a sensitive manner. In Eera v. State (NCT of Delhi)[4], the Supreme Court emphasised the privacy and confidentiality of a child, so that the best interests and wellbeing of the child are ensured. Thus, the legal framework of POCSO is curated in a way to ensure a strong protective environment for children. However, its non-recognition of consent of minors has led to the criminalisation of even consensual relationships between adolescents or involving adolescents.
Criminalisation of Consensual Adolescent Relationships
In present times, relationships among adolescents have become increasingly common. In recent years, courts have seen a significant rise in cases registered under the POCSO Act that arise from consensual relationships, not exploitation. However, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, any kind of sexual activity with a child is treated as a criminal offence. The majority of such cases are often filed by family members due to disapproval or from concerns related to family honour, caste differences, or religious differences. Some are also registered due to the mandatory reporting requirement under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, 2012. As observed by the Law Commission of India in its Report No. 283 on the Age of Consent,[5] “a significant number of POCSO cases involve adolescents in the age group of 16 to 18 years, who were engaged in mutually consensual relationships.”
In many of these cases, parents of the girl child accuse the boy of offences under POCSO by portraying their daughter as a victim, often to protect family honour. However, in many instances, the minor girl involved often supports the accused and denies any kind of exploitation. In most of such cases, minors acknowledge the consensual nature of their relationships. Despite all this, the strict liability nature of the POCSO Act and the mandatory reporting requirement under the Act leave no scope for judicial discretion. The accused, who is often another adolescent or a young adult, is treated with stringent punishments and subjected to prolonged criminal trials. Such criminal liability even for consensual acts leads to serious consequences affecting their career and damaging their social reputation.
The non-recognition of consent under the Act and the emerging reality of consensual adolescent relationships has raised important concerns about the criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships. This highlights the need for distinguishing consensual relationships from exploitation, and the need for a better approach that serves the protective nature of the Act while also acknowledging the emerging social realities.
Autonomy, Privacy and Evolving Capacity of Adolescents
This debate about the autonomy, privacy, and evolving capacity of adolescents also has a constitutional basis. In recent years, constitutional law in India has increasingly recognised the importance of privacy, individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty, even in matters concerning romantic relationships.
In 2017, the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India[6] recognised the right to privacy and held it to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court also stated that privacy includes the autonomy to make decisions regarding personal choices without interference from the State. Similarly, in 2018, the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[7] recognised the importance of sexual autonomy and the rights of individuals to engage in consensual relationships.
Although these decisions address adult autonomy, the principles behind these decisions raise important questions relating to adolescent autonomy as well, specifically whether adolescents are capable of forming informed decisions regarding their sexual autonomy. In present times, adolescents are often mature enough to understand the consequences of their acts. Societies have developed, and with that, the decision-making capacity of adolescents is also evolving. Not recognising this evolving capacity of adolescents and placing consensual relationships at par with cases of child abuse and exploitation fails the real intent and motive behind the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The strict liability nature of the Act and the criminalisation of mutually consensual behaviour among adolescents raise concerns regarding constitutional values and the protective intent behind the legislation. The absence of recognition of consent under the Act leads to harsh punishments even for consensual acts. This raises the need for a more balanced approach that upholds the real motive behind the Act and protects children from any kind of sexual abuse and exploitation, while also recognising the emerging social realities and the evolving capacity of adolescents.
Judicial Approach in Consensual Relationships
The rigid framework and strict liability nature of the POCSO Act has led to various difficulties and dilemmas in situations involving mutually consensual acts between or involving adolescents. Although the Act does not recognise consent of minors, courts in recent years have spoken about these concerns and the need for reforms under the Act in cases involving consensual behaviour.
In 2022, the Delhi High Court in Ajay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)[8] stated that “the intention of the POCSO Act was to protect children below the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation and not to criminalise romantic relationships between consenting partners.”
The Allahabad High Court, in 2024, while deciding Satish Alias Chand v. State of U.P.,[9] stated that “the primary objective of the POCSO Act is to protect minors from sexual exploitation, but it is being misused in consensual relationships between teenagers.”
In 2025, the Delhi High Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. X[10], while upholding the acquittal of the accused under the POCSO Act, stated that “the law should evolve to acknowledge and respect adolescent relationships, if they are consensual and free from coercion.” The Court also emphasised that the legal age of consent is for the protection of minors, but recognised the emerging reality of adolescent relationships and emphasised the need for reforms, so that adolescents may freely express their feelings and engage in relationships without fear of criminalisation. The Delhi High Court held that “the focus of the law should be on preventing exploitation and abuse rather than punishing love.” It noted that the POCSO Act was enacted for the protection of children, but did not draw any distinction for cases involving consensual acts.
Despite all this, such intervention from the courts is limited in scope. Courts are bound by the Act, which does not recognise consent and criminalises even consensual acts. While the courts have attempted to do real justice, the absence of a legislative framework recognising the consent of minors leads to the same fundamental problem: punishing love, not just exploitation. Thus, the legal framework needs reforms to safeguard the rights of adolescents while ensuring the real intent of the Act, that is, the protection and development of children.
Comparative Analysis
A comparative perspective, by examining the legal frameworks of different countries, offers a better approach for handling consensual relationships involving adolescents. As per the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a “child” is “any person below the age of 18 years.” However, the age of consent varies across countries, ranging from 13 to 18 years. In India, the age of consent is 18 years.
In Canada, the age of consent is 16 years. Canadian law also provides for a close-in-age exception, such that it recognises romantic relationships between adolescents of a limited age gap. While providing the close-in-age exception, the law also includes safeguards to prevent exploitation, specifically where one individual is in a position of trust, authority, or dependency.
In the United States, the age of consent varies across states and many states provide close-in-age exceptions or minimum age requirements, commonly known as “Romeo and Juliet laws.” These laws aim to protect adolescent autonomy by recognising consensual relationships while simultaneously ensuring protection from exploitation. In Australia, the age of consent ranges from 16 to 17 years depending on the state or territory, and many states also provide close-in-age exemptions. In Japan, the age of consent was raised to 16 years in 2023. In South Africa, the age of consent is 16 years, despite the fact that a “child” is also defined as a person below 18 years.
These international legal frameworks highlight carefully calibrated approaches that distinguish between exploitation and consensual relationships. This comparative analysis underscores the need for a review of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and for reforms that ensure consensual relationships do not fall within the same legal ambit as exploitation.
Need for Reforms and Suggestions
The debate about the strict liability nature of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has raised the need for a more considered approach and a better legal framework. While the current approach is essential for protecting minors from sexual exploitation, it fails to recognise the emerging realities of consensual adolescent relationships, thereby treating even consensual conduct within the same legal ambit of exploitation. Awareness of the emerging social realities of adolescence is essential for a reform-oriented approach that ensures both protection and autonomy.
1. Reassessment of the Age of Consent: One of the most significant reforms required is the reassessment of the age of consent under the Act or the recognition of consent in romantic relationships involving adolescents.
2. Distinguishing Consensual Relationships from Exploitation: There is a need to distinguish romantic, consensual relationships from exploitative conduct within the statutory framework, so that the two categories are not treated identically.
3. Introduction of a Close-in-Age Exemption: Another necessary reform is the introduction of a close-in-age exemption, also known as the “Romeo and Juliet clause.” This exception would protect consensual romantic relationships involving adolescents who are relatively close in age.
4. Scope for Judicial Discretion: A significant reform required is to allow scope for judicial discretion. Since the circumstances of every case are different, courts should be provided with limited flexibility to assess each case individually and to deliver real justice.
5. Policy-Level Interventions: All these reforms also require policy-level interventions to address the social dimensions of the issue. Awareness programmes, counselling mechanisms and sensitisation of law enforcement authorities would help in better implementation of the law, aligning it with its intended motive.
Conclusion
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was enacted on 14 November 2012 as a comprehensive legal framework for protecting children from any kind of sexual abuse and exploitation. A “child” under the POCSO Act is defined as “any person below the age of 18 years.” The strict liability nature of the Act and measures such as Special Courts, in-camera trials, and assistance from support persons demonstrate its dedication to protecting children and providing a sensitive manner of trial, such that the dignity of the child is protected and their development is ensured. This Act has played a major role in addressing serious offences against minors.
However, the non-recognition of consent under the Act has led even consensual adolescent relationships to fall within the same legal ambit of exploitation. This contradicts the constitutional rights of privacy, autonomy and dignity of adolescents, subjecting them to prolonged trials and affecting their careers and social reputation. The judiciary has recognised these concerns in several cases, yet remains bound by the Act as it provides no scope for judicial discretion. Legal frameworks of different countries also highlight both the need for and the direction of reforms.
Therefore, there is a need to refocus on the original intent and motive behind the enactment of the Act, that is, protection from exploitation. This can be achieved by recognising the difference between exploitative conduct and consensual relationships. The legal framework should understand the emerging realities of adolescent behaviour and adopt a more balanced approach, such that the real intent of protection and development is ensured without neglecting the evolving social realities.
References
[1] The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, No. 32 of 2012, INDIA CODE (2012).
[2] Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703.
[3] Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291.
[4] Eera v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 15 SCC 133.
[5] Law Commission of India, Report No. 283: Age of Consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (September 27, 2023).
[6] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[7] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
[8] Ajay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 6 HCC (Delhi) 530 : 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3705.
[9] Satish Alias Chand v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 3357.
[10] State (NCT of Delhi) v. X, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 962.
