The Supreme Court of India has directed the Union Government to examine the possibility of decriminalising consensual romantic relationships between adolescents under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The apex court also called for the formation of a national policy on comprehensive sex and reproductive health education, recognising the growing need to protect adolescents from unjust criminalisation in sensitive cases of young love.
The directive was issued by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, who took cognisance of concerns raised during a case involving a woman from West Bengal whose husband was sentenced to 20 years in prison under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. The couple had been in a consensual relationship when the woman was just 14 years old—a common situation that often results in criminal prosecution under current legal frameworks.
Recognising the adverse impact of rigid application of the POCSO Act on young lives, the Court appointed senior advocates Madhavi Divan and Liz Mathew as amici curiae to advise on the matter. The advocates submitted that the POCSO Act, while essential in protecting minors from sexual exploitation, is increasingly being used to punish consensual adolescent relationships, particularly in lower-income or socially conservative families where parental opposition leads to prosecution.
Their suggestions triggered the Supreme Court’s order to the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) to constitute an expert committee. This committee, the court said, must submit its report by July 25, 2025. The panel will examine both the legal provisions and the socio-psychological dimensions of adolescent relationships.
“The Secretary of the Ministry shall constitute the committee immediately on receipt of notice,” the bench ordered. It also specified that the members of an earlier court-constituted advisory group—including Dr. Pekham Basu (TISS), clinical psychologist Jayita Saha, and district social welfare officer Sanjeeb Rakshit—would serve as permanent invitees to the committee.
The apex court noted that several High Courts, including the Madras and Delhi High Courts, have shown judicial sensitivity in similar cases. The Madras HC, in particular, held that consensual acts between adolescents do not fulfil the criteria for ‘penetrative sexual assault’ under POCSO, as the element of coercion or exploitation is absent.
The Calcutta HC had earlier ruled that the definition of ‘penetration’ under the Act refers to a unilateral act, which cannot be automatically applied to consensual situations. In multiple judgments, courts have quashed such cases to prevent harm to the minor female complainant, especially in cases where the young couple continued their relationship or even married.
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a boy accused under POCSO, underlining that the law should not be used to punish love. “Adolescents have the right to form emotional connections. The law must evolve to acknowledge these realities, so long as they are consensual and without coercion,” the court had stated.
Alongside the legal reform push, the apex court has also asked the Union to explore the development of a comprehensive sex and reproductive health education policy. Citing a UNESCO report, the bench lamented that India’s current sex education efforts are largely confined to secondary schools and lack a unified, age-appropriate policy framework.
The proposed policy would focus on life skills, consent, biological changes during adolescence, and emotional literacy—key factors in preventing both exploitation and criminalisation of normal developmental behaviour. This is not the first time that judicial voices have called for reform. As far back as 2001, the Madras High Court had urged the legislature to amend the law to prevent the unjust prosecution of adolescents for consensual acts.
The Court had pointed out that hormonal changes and lack of mature decision-making among teenagers must be addressed with empathy and counselling—not jail terms and life-long criminal records. “Sending an adolescent boy to prison in such a case ensures he is persecuted for life,” the Madras HC had stated in a warning that went largely unheeded until now.
