The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was enacted to protect children below 18 years from sexual offences. However, a major debate has emerged regarding consensual romantic relationships between adolescents. The Supreme Court has discussed the need for a “Romeo-Juliet Clause” to distinguish consensual teenage relationships from exploitative sexual offences.
Emerging Challenges
- 1. Criminalisation of Consensual Relationships
- Under POCSO, any sexual activity involving a person below 18 years is treated as an offence irrespective of consent. Thus, consensual adolescent relationships are also criminalised.
- 2. Misuse by Families
- In many cases, parents use POCSO provisions to oppose inter-caste, inter-religious or socially unacceptable relationships. This converts a protective law into an instrument of social control.
- 3. Psychological and Social Impact
- Criminal prosecution, arrest and social stigma negatively affect the mental health, education and future prospects of adolescents involved in consensual relationships.
- 4. Burden on Judiciary
- A significant number of consensual relationship cases increase the burden on courts and police authorities, reducing focus on genuine child sexual abuse cases.
- 5. Conflict between Protection and Autonomy
- While the Act aims to protect minors, it often ignores evolving maturity, privacy and autonomy of adolescents, creating tension between protection and personal liberty.
- Romeo-Juliet Clause Debate: The proposed Romeo-Juliet Clause seeks to provide limited exemption for consensual relationships between adolescents close in age. The Supreme Court has observed that consensual teenage relationships should be differentiated from predatory sexual offences.
Suggestions:
- Introduce a close-in-age exemption under POCSO.
- Ensure strict punishment only in exploitative or coercive cases.
- Promote adolescent counselling and awareness programmes.
- Balance child protection with constitutional rights of privacy and dignity.
- The Romeo-Juliet Clause debate highlights the need to balance child protection with adolescent autonomy. A balanced legal framework can prevent misuse of the POCSO Act while ensuring protection against genuine sexual exploitation.
Under Section 11 of the POCSO Act, a person commits sexual harassment of a child when they, with sexual intent:
- Utter any word, make any sound, gesture, or exhibit any object or body part intending for the child to hear, see, or observe it.
- Make a child display their body or any part of it to the person or another.
- Show any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes.
- Repeatedly follow, watch, or contact a child directly or through electronic, digital, or other means.
- Threaten to use, in any media form, real or fabricated depictions of the child’s body or their involvement in a sexual act.
- entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefore.
Section 12 prescribes punishment for sexual harassment, with imprisonment for up to three years and a fine.
Section 5 of The POCSO Act defines certain actions as “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” in 20 categories
- These include cases when a police officer, a member of the armed forces, or a public servant commits penetrative sexual assault on a child.
- It also covers cases where the offender is a relative of the child, or if the assault injures the sexual organs of the child or the child becomes pregnant, among others.
- The POCSO Amendment Act 2019, adds two more grounds to the definition of aggravated penetrative sexual assault- (i) assault resulting in death of child, and (ii) assault committed during a natural calamity, or in any similar situations of violence.
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) of 2012 prescribes a minimum of 20 years in rigorous imprisonment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, which can extend to life imprisonment or death penalty. The offender is also liable to pay a fine to the victim to cover medical expenses and rehabilitation.
