Rakia Imran
On 18th February, 2025, in a significant legal observation, a Single-Bench comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court noted that adolescents should not be subjected to prosecution under statutory rape laws simply for engaging in consensual romantic relationships. The Court took issue with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which criminalizes even consensual sexual relationships if one of the individuals involved is marginally under 18 years of age. The judge stressed that the legal framework must evolve to reflect a more rational and just perspective on adolescent relationships, ensuring that young individuals in their late teens are not unnecessarily penalized for engaging in consensual romantic associations.
“I believe that societal and legal views on adolescent love should emphasize the rights of young individuals to engage in romantic relationships that are free from exploitation and abuse. Love is a fundamental human experience, and adolescents have the right to form emotional connections. The law should evolve to acknowledge and respect these relationships, as long as they are consensual and free from coercion”, he observed.
According to the Court, the legal age of consent plays a vital role in protecting minors, but the law must prioritize addressing cases of abuse instead of treating mutually agreed-upon relationships among teens as criminal acts.
“The legal system must safeguard young individuals’ right to love while ensuring their safety and well-being. A compassionate approach that prioritizes understanding over punishment is necessary in cases involving adolescent relationships”, the Court said.
Several High Courts in India have taken a critical stance on how the POCSO Act is being applied in cases involving adolescent relationships. In October 2023, the Calcutta High Court remarked that the Act unjustly categorized consensual interactions between teenagers as acts of abuse, rather than distinguishing them from actual instances of sexual violence. It advocated for an amendment that would ensure that consensual acts involving individuals over 16 years are not treated as criminal offenses. A similar viewpoint had earlier been put forth by the Madras High Court in 2021.
Continuing this judicial discourse, the Karnataka High Court in February 2024 asserted that the POCSO Act was made to provide protection against exploitation, not to target romantic relationships between adolescents. In March 2024, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while granting bail to a 21-year-old accused in a POCSO case, noted that love among teenagers should not be subjected to legal intervention. By July 2024, the Allahabad High Court also raised concerns regarding the misuse of the Act, cautioning that it was being leveraged to criminalize innocent romantic associations between minors.
The Delhi High Court recently addressed a case concerning a Class 12 girl student who was reported missing by her father in December 2014. According to the complaint, she had left home for tuition classes but did not return. Subsequent investigations led to her being found in the company of a young man who was over 18 years old. The boy was subsequently arrested and charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, a trial court acquitted him of all charges. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the State filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court. After reviewing the evidence, the High Court dismissed the State’s appeal on January 30, 2025. The Court noted that the girl, in her testimony, had unambiguously stated that her relationship with the accused was consensual. Furthermore, the Court observed that there were inconsistencies regarding the exact age of the girl, although it was established that she was between 16 and 17 years old at the time of the incident.
The Court held that convicting the accused under the POCSO Act without concrete proof of the girl’s age would be both harsh and unjust, particularly given that she was only about two years away from reaching the legal age of majority, i.e., 18 years, at the time of the incident. However, the Court emphasized that this leniency could not be extended in cases where there were clear documents stating that the victim was below 14 or 15 years old. In such situations, disregarding the statutory provisions of the POCSO Act would lead to a breach of justice. With these observations, the Court upheld the trial court’s verdict acquitting the accused and dismissed the appeal filed by the State.
The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, while Advocates Vinay Kumar Sharma, Prince, Aaditya, and Ritu Kumari represented the accused.
Case Name: State v. Hitesh
Citation: CRL.L.P. 10/2022
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh