Supreme Court Asks Centre To Consider Introducing Romeo-Juliet Clause Exempting Genuine Adolescent Relationships From Stronghold Of POCSO Act

The Supreme Court has asked the Government of India to consider the introduction of a Romeo-Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The Court set aside the directions of the Allahabad High Court, by which it had mandated age determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the POCSO Act.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh ordered, “Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been taken of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc.”

The Bench remarked that misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm - on the one end children are silenced by fear and their families are constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are able to manipulate the law to their advantage.

AOR Ruchira Goel represented the Appellant, while Advocate D.S. Parmar represented the Respondents.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “The impugned judgment is one amongst many where Courts have spoken out. Not only are instances rife where the age of the victim is misrepresented to make the incident fall under the stringent provisions of this law but also there are numerous instances where this law is used by families in opposition to relationships between young people.”

The Court said that no amount of judicial vigilance against misuse can alone bridge this ever-widening gap and the first line of defence lies with the Bar i.e., the body that translates grievance into action and is the gatekeeper of justice at the point of entry.

“When it comes to matters such as these, the responsibility of the advocate is profound – to examine the allegations with detachment and necessary discretion and to counsel restraint when grievance masks vengeance and to refuse participation in litigation when it can be seen that an ulterior motive is sought to be agitated under the guise of seeking protection of the law. It is only when the Bar takes a principled, proactive role, that the legislation intended as a shield can be stopped from being twisted into a weapon”, it added.

The Court emphasised that a lawyer who tempers aggression with calm, reason and rationality, protects not only the opposing party from unwarranted harm but also the client from the long-term consequences of frivolous or malicious litigation, including adverse orders, and judicial censure.

“By taking a principled stand, the Bar acts as a crucial filter, preventing the legal system from being overwhelmed by abuse masquerading as enforcement. Such self-regulation strengthens public faith in the profession, ensures that judicial time is reserved for genuine disputes, and reinforces the foundational idea that law is a means of justice, not a weapon of convenience. In this sense, the ethical vigilance of lawyers is not ancillary to justice, it is indispensable to it. When they do not do so, the chasm alluded to above widens”, it noted.

The Court further observed that the society must match institutional reform with moral awakening and the intent and object of these legislations must be at the forefront when a person wishes to lodge a complaint thereunder.

“The misuse of these laws is a mirror to the opportunistic and self-centered view that pervades the application of law. It is only through discipline, integrity and courage that these problems can be remedied and rooted out. Any legislative amendment or judicial direction will remain lack-luster without this deeper change”, it also said.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that the High Court’s Judgment and Order has to be set aside on grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and thereby lacking the appropriate directions.

“We have referred to certain instances of the High Courts noting the misuse/misapplication of the POCSO Act, somewhat in line with the indices appended to the impugned judgment as also its progenitors. … The bail granted in terms of these judgments and orders, is left undisturbed in view of the other factors considered by the learned Single Judge subject to judicial review, if any”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the directions issued in the impugned Judgment, and directed the Registry to dispatch forthwith a copy of its Judgment to the Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, for necessary follow-up action, as also information to the Trial Courts.

Cause Title- The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 47)

Click here to read/download the Judgment