New Delhi: Across India’s juvenile homes and courtrooms, a growing number of teenage boys are being prosecuted as sexual offenders. As the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 criminalises all sexual relationships involving minors, more and more social workers, judges and legal experts are saying that this law, instead of protecting children, is increasingly being weaponised against consensual adolescent relationships.Social workers estimate that up to 40% of cases in juvenile homes involve “love affair” disputes, not sexual abuse, because the POCSO Act treats minors as incapable of consent. Critics argue that in many cases, this law is misapplied, turning adolescent romance into criminal prosecution. Legal experts are suggesting a “Romeo-Juliet” exemption in the law, hoping that would allow judges to distinguish between consenting teens and exploitation.According to Mumbai-based social worker Vijay Johare, who is associated with Prayas, a field action project of TISS, almost 25-40% cases of teenage boys he has seen in observation homes, meant to house teens in conflict with the POCSO Act, were in “love affairs”. They had romantic entanglements with their minor girlfriends, but the legal system criminalised them.Johare recalls the Marathi film Sairat (2016) about a doomed inter-caste couple who marry despite parental objection. The film became all the rage and is even said to have inspired a girl to steal cash and gold from her parents to elope with her boyfriend, both of them underage teens.Johare said he has come across innumerable cases where teenagers have eloped, gone to another city and “married” because their parents objected to their relationships. In such cases, the teens – often a dangerous mix of clueless and penniless – “marry” in temples and live as “husband and wife”.The girl’s family then files a missing person report or, if they know the boy, slap a kidnapping charge on him. Social workers and experts say that in such situations, the boy – irrespective of his age – is often painted as the offender and the girl is treated like a victim incapable of giving consent.The legal norms completely deny the young their sexual autonomy, but things only get worse thereafter. Once located and brought to her parents’ house, the girl is usually sent to a state-run home, and the boy is remanded to an observation home. While the girls do return to their parents’ custody, the young boys are left to the mercy of the judicial system. Having seen young people suffer through this system, Johare believes POCSO must exempt genuine romantic relationships.Earlier this month, the Supreme Court also asked the Union government to consider a so-called Romeo-Juliet exemption after flagging repeated misuse and weaponisation of child protection clauses in consensual teenage relationships. On January 9, the court observed that the POCSO Act “aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow” but has become an “instrument” which is “misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge”. It said the “notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion” due to how the law has worked.Many say the weaponisation of POCSO is emblematic of an increasingly hostile anti-choice environment in the country. In the hands of disgruntled families, a law designed to protect children from sexual abuse has become a cudgel against inter-caste and inter-faith unions. By criminalising adolescent autonomy, the state effectively endorses parental control over personal choice and identity. These “romantic” cases reveal a chilling reality: the legal system will punish young love whenever it defies tradition.A proposed fix, though a disputed oneThe “close-age gap exemption”, colloquially referred to as the “Romeo-Juliet” clause, emerged in the United States to protect consensual relationships between adolescents of similar ages or those with a small age gap between them. This was in response to similar concerns of teenagers being unfairly criminalised under statutory rape clauses.The term comes from Shakespeare’s eponymous tragedy Romeo and Juliet, a play about star-crossed teenage lovers from feuding families.A “Romeo-Juliet” clause usually keeps the age of consent at 18 but creates an exception for cases where the parties involved are younger. Essentially, it allows judicial discretion to identify consensual relationships versus sexual abuse.Experts are in two camps on the Romeo-Juliet clause. One seeks to lower the age of consent from 18 to 16 years – as it was when the POCSO Act was first introduced. The others say an exception must be carved out for genuine romantic relationships, leaving the age of consent untouched to protect children – boys as well as girls – from the risk of abuse in the name of exploration or experimentation.The same legal experts who want the law to understand equations between teens better, also warn that a Romeo-Juliet exemption risks becoming a narrow, procedural fix that leaves the criminalisation of adolescent sexuality under POCSO intact. Not just that, they argue that without deeper reform, the clause may offer relief only to a small number of cases while preserving the law’s punitive core.Some even warn that in practice, such an exemption could end up benefiting only a small, legally savvy minority, while leaving the vast majority of adolescents – especially those from poorer or marginalised backgrounds – exposed to the same punitive machinery.Hence, it is worth stating upfront that while often presented as a corrective to POCSO’s excesses, the Romeo-Juliet clause is far from universally accepted as a solution. Advocate Anant Asthana, an expert in juvenile law, cautions that the Romeo-Juliet exemption risks becoming “a slogan rather than a solution”, arguing that it does little to undo the deeper criminalisation embedded in POCSO.Age of consentThe age of consent varies across countries, from 12 years to 18 years. However, a majority of countries – including most of Europe and 31 states of the United States – consider 16 years the age of consent for teenagers to have “full knowledge and understanding of what sexual activity entails, and its consequences”.Asthana pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2017 Independent Thought judgement – by the now-retired Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta – was the first that said sex with a minor was rape. He said the judgement “demolished” the “carefully and consistently raised safety gate of judicial discretion in criminal trials of sexual offences and paved the way for the fullest possible blanket criminalisation” – it “literally ended the era of judicial discretion”.“Subsequent judicial trends in the Supreme Court have been sceptical of the approach adopted by Justices Lokur and Gupta but, so far, the impact of their verdict on judicial approaches of the trial judiciary is sustaining,” he said. Asthana said a more “nuanced, pragmatic and human rights oriented judicial approach” is needed to be found to “bend the arch of the POCSO Act towards justice”.The Madras High Court in its Sabari case said consensual relationships between teenagers aged between 16 and 18 years, who are infatuated or innocent should not come within the purview of POCSO, where the minimum jail time is not less than 7 to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The high court batted to raise the age of consent and said a child should be redefined as someone below 16 years of age instead of 18.Advocate Nipun Saxena, who filed a public interest petition before the Supreme Court seeking to lower the age of consent to 16 years, said the appellate courts are burdened with such cases. There were about 300 cases filed between 2021 and May 2025 alone. If you add bails, revisions, quashing of FIRs, appeals against convictions and so on, the caseload snowballs into multiple litigations that reach almost 500 cases before different high courts. This is also a significant burden on the already stressed judiciary, he said.Teenagers are having sex, that’s a realityAnindita Pattanayak, senior legal researcher at Enfold Proactive Health Trust, said adolescent sexuality is a reality, regardless of how uncomfortable society may be with it. National Family Health Survey (NFHS) data indicate that 39% of women and 6% of men aged 25 to 49 years had their first sexual experience before turning 18.Professor Vijay Raghavan from the Centre for Criminology and Justice at the Tata Institute of Social Science (TISS) and Project Director, Prayas-TISS, said the reality is that ever-younger teens are entering sexual relationships.Experts also say that sexual experimentation is natural among teenagers, and POCSO criminalises this normal developmental phase. In 2021, the Madras High Court recognised this in its Vijayalakshmi judgement on the right to privacy of adolescents, saying, “An adolescent boy and girl… whose decision-making ability is yet to fully develop, should essentially receive the support and guidance of their parents and the society at large.”The court held that they do not need to be perceived from an “adult point of view” lacking in the empathy needed at that age.In 2025, the Delhi High Court observed, “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.”“Adolescence is when the young develop independent identities and understand their own boundaries and respect for others. Sexual activity at this age should not automatically be treated as deviant behaviour deserving criminal punishment. Normative sexuality should be distinguished from sexual exploitation,” Pattanayak said, adding, “Sexual activity does carry risks, but the state’s response cannot be blanket criminalisation.”Johare said Instagram, Facebook and other social media platforms also have a huge impact on teenagers. “Teens are influenced by what they see on the internet, and want to do the same for reels and social media,” he said.It’s a mixed bag of outcomes when the teenagers are “caught”. Sometimes, reality hits them, and there is a break-up – especially where the parents are overbearing and hold strong opinions. Others stay together despite opposition. “Eventually, families come around because by now the entire society knows ki ladka-ladki ek saath bhag gaye (the couple eloped) and now it’s about the family and the girl’s honour. They think, who will marry the girl now, especially if she gets pregnant,” Johare said.“There are instances where the teenage girl supports bail pleas [of the boy], and after he gets bail, they come for proceedings together. Some of them even come with kids of their own,” he said.POCSO misused and weaponised, say courtsOver the years, the Supreme Court dealt with this issue across several pleas in one or another: criminal appeals in POCSO cases, or public interest litigations.Enfold, an NGO, analysed POCSO cases from Assam, Maharashtra and West Bengal and concluded that 24.3% of all POCSO cases were “romantic” cases between consenting adolescents. The study revealed that 80.2% of cases were lodged by the girl’s parents when she pursued a relationship against their will.The Enfold study found that at least 17 high courts have quashed cases of consensual relationships filed under the POCSO Act. Courts observed the need for flexibility and discretion in the law to account for the “biosocial dynamics” of young love.The Allahabad High Court noted a recurring problem where there were frequent contradictions in the recorded age of victims, and cases where adult women were falsely being portrayed as minors to invoke the stringent POCSO provisions.Also read: SC to Study Whether Minors Can Be Punished Under POCSO for Consensual SexMadhya Pradesh High Court said grave “injustice” was being done to adolescent boys, and the Bombay High Court said parliament must rethink POCSO laws on this aspect.In another case, the Bombay High Court said it was “conscious of the fact that the passing of POCSO has been significant and progressive step in securing children’s rights and furthering the cause of protecting children against sexual abuse,” but it was also “conscious of the fact that consensual sex between minors has been in a legal grey area because the consent given by minor is not considered to be a valid consent in eyes of law”.In one case, a court in Gujarat said it was sentencing a man to 20 years under POCSO “with a heavy heart” even though the relationship was consensual.Meghalaya High Court went so far as to state that “acts of mutual love and affection between a young couple will not amount to ‘sexual assault’ under POCSO.”The Law Commission of India (LCI) in its 283rd report categorically ruled out any possibility of amending the age of consent despite acknowledging the miscarriage of justice in cases of consensual relations involving adolescents.Punishing teenagers pushes them awayLawyers, professors, civil rights champions and social workers suggest “criminalisation is counterproductive”. Pattanayak said punitive action would push “adolescent sexuality underground” and create “an environment of fear where young people are discouraged from approaching authorities for help or healthcare, including for contraception” or medical termination of pregnancy.“It also forces adolescents to come into contact with the criminal justice system, either as victims or perpetrators, both of which are deeply traumatic and disruptive,” she said.Advocate Soutik Banerjee says the “overzealous” use of POCSO often gets weaponised when it takes the shape of “moral policing” against innocent couples. “The trauma runs deep and ruins lives, when it [their relations] should never have been exposed to criminal persecution. The Romeo-Juliet clause must protect such innocent couples and friends,” Banerjee said.The Madras High Court has also noted that adolescent boys who are sent to prisons in cases of this nature would be persecuted throughout their lives.When Supreme Court saved a ‘marriage’Former Supreme Court judge Abhay Oka has dwelled on the challenging situation created by the law, saying a debate on Romeo-Juliet laws as well as the age of consent are the need of the hour. Justice Oka accepted that strict POCSO laws can be problematic in unique cases. In that instance, he was referring to early marriage, often practiced among tribes across India.While primary health care workers are mandated by law to inform the police when pregnant tribal minor girls seek healthcare, the former judge pointed out. This results in their husbands getting arrested, he said, which will only deter women from seeking health care.The former judge said the top court’s 2017 Independent Thought judgement was in response to the sign of the times. Legislative intent, which champions the age of consent at 18 years, also cannot be ignored, he added. However, judicial discretion can be considered on the merits of a case.In April 2025, the Supreme Court convicted a man under POCSO but did not imprison him. In this situation, the girl – the man’s wife – did not consider herself a victim even though she was only 14 when her relationship started. She had been contesting the conviction of her partner across judicial fora. The top court noted that the facts of this case were an “eye opener” as they highlighted the “lacuna in our legal system”.Also read: ‘Takes 1 Year, 5 Months to Dispose of a POCSO Case; UP Has Highest Pendency Percentage’: Report“The final report (submitted by the amici appointed in this case) concludes that though the incident was seen as a crime in law, the victim did not accept it as one. The Committee records that it was not the legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim, but rather, it was the consequences that followed, which took a toll on her,” Justice Oka read from his judgement. “What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system and the constant battle to save the accused from punishment,” it added.Awareness, support are keys to solving the problemExperts say a blanket acceptance of adolescent relationships is not the answer. They say the legal system must beware cases of minor girls or boys being “groomed” into believing they were in love. Many such instances can lead their falling into the trap of child-sexual-abuse networks, which include human traffickers.According to Pattanayak, “The answer lies in creating supportive and empowering environments that respect the evolving capacities of adolescents with access to comprehensive sex education, life skills and knowledge of their rights to help them make informed decisions,” she said.“Sexual taboos cannot justify the imposition of criminal sanctions. After all, they exist even around adult sexuality unless it fits within the narrow heteronormative relationships of marriage,” Pattanayak added.Professor Raghavan said there are no “ideal solutions” – most proposals were just “quick fixes”, including the Romeo-Juliet clause. The key is not not ignore the core issue at hand – the reality that teenagers experimenting with sex need sex education and a better understanding of how to handle relationships. “These are what you call the changing mores of society,” he added.Advocate Asthana also said the Romeo-Juliet formula needs further examination. “As of now, we only have a slogan being raised, as if it is going to be the magic wand. I am sorry: I don’t share such baseless optimism,” he said. “Induction of a Romeo-Juliet exception in POCSO trials is not a fundamental solution towards decriminalisation of adolescent non-exploitative, non-criminal, consensual sexual behavior. If legislated or judicially ordered, it will just add to the already very complex legal and procedural labyrinth created by POCSO,” he said.“Only those who have capacity and resources to navigate the justice universe will be able to gain any benefit from it. For rest, it won’t mean anything,” Asthana added.Raghavan said society may not be ready to accept that teenagers are sexually active or in romantic relationships, but it needs recognition. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision to decriminalise same-sex relationships, he said society was not ready for it, but it happened. And now, slowly, social acceptance is growing. It is for instances like these that the “law has to be ahead of its time,” he said.