The ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause in POCSO Act

Abstract

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was enacted to shield minors from sexual exploitation. However, its broad criminalisation of all sexual activity involving minors has resulted in the prosecution of consensual teenage relationships, burdening courts and causing harm to adolescents engaged in non-exploitative conduct. In January 2026, the Supreme Court of India urged the Central Government to introduce a ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause — a close-in-age exemption — as a statutory exception under the POCSO Act.[1] This article examines the meaning and origin of this clause, the Supreme Court’s position, relevant judicial interpretations, global jurisprudence, and the potential impact of its implementation in India.

I. Introduction

In recent years, India has faced a growing conflict between the protection of children and the recognition of adolescents’ decision-making capacity. The POCSO Act, in criminalising all sexual activity involving minors, has inadvertently criminalised consensual relationships between teenagers. The central question in today’s dynamic legal landscape is: to what extent is it appropriate to treat a consensual relationship between adolescents as statutory rape?

Over the past two decades, cases have multiplied in which parents — motivated by personal grievances or objections to inter-caste or inter-religion relationships — have falsely accused young men of statutory rape, only for investigations to reveal a consensual relationship between teenagers.[2] Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court has recently emphasised the need to introduce a ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause that would decriminalise consensual sexual relationships between adolescents, subject to certain conditions. This article dissects the concept of the ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause — its origins, the Court’s views, its potential impact, and the global jurisprudence informing the debate.

II. Meaning and Origin of the ‘Romeo-Juliet’ Clause

The Romeo-Juliet clause, also known as the ‘close-in-age exemption,’ is a legal provision that decriminalises consensual sexual relationships between teenagers who are close in age. Its purpose is to distinguish genuine peer relationships from adult-minor relationships of an exploitative nature — the very conduct for which the POCSO Act was enacted.[3]

The specific debate around introducing this clause in India was triggered by a First Information Report (FIR) registered on 24th November 2022, in which a mother alleged the kidnapping of her twelve-year-old daughter. The complaint was registered under Section 363 (kidnapping) and Section 366 (abduction for marriage or illicit intercourse) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.[4] When the bail application reached the Allahabad High Court, the girl’s statement and medical examination revealed that she was an adult and that the relationship was consensual. The High Court granted bail and issued a general direction that a medical test to determine the girl’s age was a prerequisite to registering any complaint under the POCSO Act.

The State Government challenged this direction before the Supreme Court, questioning the High Court’s authority to issue such a broad directive. It was in this context that the Apex Court urged the Central Government to introduce a Romeo-Juliet clause in the POCSO Act.[5]

III. Views of the Supreme Court

When seized of the matter arising from the Allahabad High Court’s direction, the Supreme Court clarified that a High Court, when acting as a ‘Statutory Court’ in bail proceedings, cannot issue directions of general application binding upon the entire State.[6]

The Court further held that the correct procedure for determining a child’s age is governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, specifically the three-tier hierarchy under Section 94:

Step 1: School Date of Birth Certificate.
Step 2: Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation or Panchayat.
Step 3: Medical examination.

The Court emphasised that the authorities may proceed to the third step only if the first two are unavailable or if there is a strong, documented reason to bypass them. This ruling effectively overturned the Allahabad High Court’s blanket direction requiring medical examination as a precondition.

Alongside this procedural ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted that the POCSO Act — designed to protect children — was increasingly being weaponised against children themselves. The Court accordingly urged the Central Government to consider introducing the Romeo-Juliet clause as a statutory exception.[7]

IV. Legislative History and Judicial Calls for Reform

The Supreme Court’s January 2026 direction did not emerge in a vacuum. A sustained legislative and judicial history reflects growing recognition that the POCSO Act requires nuanced reform to address consensual adolescent relationships. Data indicates that approximately 40–60% of POCSO cases involve romantic relationships in which a girl’s parents have falsely accused the boy of a criminal offence.[8] Key milestones in this reform debate include:

2013 — Justice Verma Committee: Recommended lowering the age of consent to 16 years, though this recommendation was ultimately rejected.
2019 and 2021 — Madras High Court: Cited the close-in-age exemption principle in decisions concerning consensual relationships under the POCSO Act.
2023 — Law Commission of India: Advised on reducing mandatory minimum sentences and granting courts greater discretion where consent is established.
2026 — Supreme Court of India: Formally urged the Central Government to introduce the Romeo-Juliet clause as a statutory exception under the POCSO Act.

Conditions Proposed by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court indicated that the exemption should apply only where the following conditions are satisfied:
— The age gap between the parties does not exceed three to four years.
— The younger person is at least 14 to 15 years of age.
— The relationship is genuinely consensual and free from exploitation.

V. Judicial Interpretation

Indian courts have, on several occasions, endorsed the spirit of the close-in-age exemption even in the absence of a formal statutory provision. Two significant decisions are illustrative:

Ashik Ramjan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2019 (Bom. H.C., 2023):[9] The accused had a consensual relationship with a girl aged 17 years and a few months — technically a minor under the POCSO Act. The Bombay High Court held that the mere fact that the girl was a minor did not automatically warrant conviction, given the consensual nature of the relationship.

State v. Hitesh, 2025 DHC 944 (Delhi H.C., Feb. 19, 2025):[10] The Delhi High Court upheld an acquittal in a case involving a consensual sexual relationship, emphasising that the POCSO Act must focus on preventing exploitation rather than criminalising consensual relationships. The Court observed that adolescent relationships are a natural part of development and do not necessarily attract criminal culpability.

VI. Global Jurisprudence

India can draw meaningful guidance from jurisdictions that have already implemented close-in-age exemptions. The following comparative overview illustrates the varied approaches adopted internationally:

Canada: The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. Under an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada,[11] a person aged 14 to 15 years may consent to sexual activity with a partner who is no more than five years older, without such activity constituting a criminal offence, provided no relationship of trust, authority, or dependency exists.

United States — Florida: The age of consent is 18 years. Under Florida’s Romeo-Juliet statute (Florida Statute §794.05, as amended in 2007), persons aged 16 to 17 may engage in consensual sexual activity with a partner who is no more than four years older without committing a felony.[12]

United States — Georgia: The age of consent is 16 years. Under Georgia law (as amended in 2006), minors aged 14 to 15 who engage in consensual sexual activity with a partner within a three-year age gap are not subject to felony prosecution for statutory rape; the conduct is instead classified as a misdemeanour.[13]

Philippines: The age of consent was raised from 12 to 16 years under legislation enacted in 2022. Under the close-in-age exemption, a 16-year-old may consent to sexual activity with a partner who is no more than three years older.[14]

Australia: The age of consent varies by state but is generally 16 to 17 years. In several jurisdictions (from approximately 2001), persons aged 15 to 17 may engage in consensual activity with a partner no more than five years their senior without criminal liability.[15]

Japan: The national age of consent under the Penal Code is 13 years; however, local prefectural ordinances effectively raise this to 16 to 18 years in practice. Japan does not have a formal close-in-age exemption statute, though prosecutorial discretion operates in a similar manner.[16]

VII. Potential Impact of the Romeo-Juliet Clause in India

Implementation of the close-in-age exemption would have far-reaching consequences for the Indian legal and social landscape:

1. A New Legal Approach to Consensual Youth Relationships: The amendment would mark a significant shift from the POCSO Act’s current strict liability framework. Adolescents in genuine consensual relationships would be protected from prosecution, and the misuse of the Act to falsely accuse young men of rape in inter-caste or inter-religion relationship disputes would be substantially curtailed.[17]

2. Reduced Burden on Courts: Given that an estimated 40–60% of POCSO cases involve consensual relationships, the exemption would significantly reduce the volume of such cases reaching trial, freeing judicial resources for cases involving genuine exploitation and abuse.[18]

3. Alignment with Contemporary Realities: Adolescents today possess greater social awareness and access to information than previous generations. Recognising their capacity for consensual decision-making within defined parameters would reflect the law’s willingness to evolve with the times.[19]

4. Prevention of Misuse by Families: The POCSO Act has increasingly been weaponised by parents opposing inter-caste or inter-religion relationships. The Romeo-Juliet clause would provide a legal safeguard against such instrumentalisation, restoring the Act’s protective purpose.

5. Social and Educational Impact: Decriminalising consensual peer relationships under defined conditions would help destigmatise age-appropriate discussions around sexual consent and autonomy for young people, while allowing courts and law enforcement to concentrate on cases of genuine exploitation.[20]

VIII. Conclusion

The POCSO Act was introduced to protect children from sexual exploitation. In recent years, however, it has been increasingly misused as a tool to prosecute consensual adolescent relationships and, in many instances, to weaponise the law against the very children it was designed to protect. While courts have repeatedly recognised this tension and rendered decisions in favour of decriminalisation in individual cases, no rigid statutory protection for such relationships currently exists.

The time has come for the Central Government to act upon the Supreme Court’s considered recommendation and introduce the close-in-age exemption — the Romeo-Juliet clause — as a statutory exception to the POCSO Act. This reform must be understood not as a dilution of child protection but as a necessary refinement of it: one that distinguishes exploitation from consent, acknowledges adolescent development, reduces judicial burden, and restores public faith in the justice system. The protection of children and the recognition of adolescent agency are not competing values — they can, and must, coexist within a mature legal framework.[21]

References

[1] G. Ananthakrishnan, Consider ‘Romeo-Juliet Clause’ to Exempt Genuine Adolescent Relationships from POCSO Act: SC to Centre, The Indian Express (Jan. 11, 2026), https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/romeo-juliet-clause-exempt-genuine-adolescent-relationships-pocso-act-sc-10467563/
[2] U. Anand, SC Flags POCSO Misuse, Urges ‘Romeo-Juliet’ Clause, Hindustan Times (Jan. 10, 2026), https://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Home/ShareArticle?OrgId=1010a9e96d5&imageview=0
[3] NDTV News Desk, What Is “Romeo-Juliet” Clause, The Supreme Court Wants Under POCSO Act, NDTV (Jan. 12, 2026), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/what-is-romeo-juliet-clause-the-supreme-court-wants-under-pocso-act-10709061
[4] R. Choudhury, Supreme Court Bats for ‘Romeo-Juliet Clause’ to Exempt Consensual Teen Relationships from POCSO Act, Bar & Bench (Jan. 10, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-bats-for-romeo-juliet-clause-to-exempt-consensual-teen-relationships-from-pocso-act
[5] Y. Mittal, Supreme Court Urges Union to Bring ‘Romeo-Juliet’ Clause in POCSO Act to Shield Consensual Adolescent Relationships from Prosecution, LiveLaw (Jan. 10, 2026), https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-urges-union-to-bring-romeo-juliet-clause-in-pocso-act-to-shield-consensual-adolescent-relationships-from-prosecution-518380
[6] Consider the Romeo-Juliet Clause in POCSO to Protect Adolescent Relationships, SC Tells Centre, The Hindu (Jan. 10, 2026), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/consider-romeo-juliet-clause-in-pocso-to-protect-adolescent-relationships-sc-tells-centre/article70495275.ece
[7] Team TOI Plus, What Is the Romeo-Juliet Clause and Why Teen Relationships Are Forcing a Legal Rethink, Times of India (Jan. 14, 2026), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-plus/law/what-is-the-romeo-juliet-clause-and-why-teen-relationships-are-forcing-a-legal-rethink/articleshow/126502942.cms
[8] Saundarya D. Nair & Priyasha Pattnaik, Evaluating the Efficacy of Romeo-Juliet Laws in India, 6 J. Rts. Child Nat’l L. U. Odisha 176 (Apr. 2025).
[9] Ashik Ramjan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2019 (Bom. H.C. July 15, 2023), reported in Sakshi Shukla, Age of Minority of Victim Will Not Per Se Lead to Conviction Under POCSO Act: Bombay High Court, Lawbeat (July 15, 2023).
[10] State v. Hitesh, 2025 DHC 944 (Delhi H.C. Feb. 19, 2025), reported in Verdictum, https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/delhi-high-court/state-v-hitesh-2025-dhc-944-pocso-act-adolescent-relationships-1568688
[11] Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 150.1(2) (Can.) (as amended).
[12] Fla. Stat. §794.05 (2007). [Note: The original article’s claim that partners “up to 23 years of age” are exempt requires verification against the current statute; the four-year age-gap rule stated here reflects the standard interpretation of the provision.]
[13] O.C.G.A. §16-6-3(b) (Ga. 2006).
[14] Republic Act No. 11648 (Phil. 2022).
[15] Supreme Court Romeo-Juliet POCSO Judgment, Supreme Today, https://supremetoday.ai/issue/supreme-court-romeo-juliet-pocso-judgment
[16] Id.
[17] Ananthakrishnan, supra note 1.
[18] Nair & Pattnaik, supra note 8, at 176.
[19] Choudhury, supra note 4.
[20] Mittal, supra note 5.
[21] The Hindu, supra note 6.