In a country where the age of consent is fixed at 18 years, what happens to a 17-year-old in a consensual relationship? This has become a pressing legal concern after the Supreme Court’s unconventional decision In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, where it refrained from sentencing the accused, marking a shift from the strict enforcement of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). While pointing out the law’s lacunae, the apex court urged the Central Government of India to consider decriminalising consensual adolescent relationships and to frame a comprehensive reproductive health and sex education policy. The 22nd Law Commission, in its 283rd report, has also examined this issue in detail, recommending amendments to the POCSO Act.

The POCSO Act was enacted to protect minors from sexual abuse, irrespective of gender. However, courts are increasingly dealing with cases where teenagers in consensual relationships are being penalised under a law designed to protect them.

Why a Need for Decriminalisation?

Adolescence is a transitional phase marked by emotional, cognitive, and sexual development. In a modernising society, romantic and sexual relationships among adolescents shaped by curiosity, emotional growth, and peer influence are a developmental reality. Yet, Indian criminal law does not differentiate between exploitative abuse and consensual intimacy. The law must evolve to acknowledge young love, giving adolescents autonomy and support for healthy emotional and sexual growth. The Supreme Court and several High Courts have echoed this sentiment.

Teens caught in POCSO cases suffer social stigma, disrupted education, mental health issues, and a criminal record that affects their future. Criminalising consensual intimacy sends a message that their natural experiences are deviant or immoral. It undermines autonomy and damages trust in a legal system that punishes mutual affection.

Many cases arise from parental disapproval of inter-caste, inter-faith, or economically unequal relationships. Courts have frequently flagged misuse of POCSO by families to target consensual ties like in Satish alias Chand v State of UP (2024).

The Risk of Sweeping Legal Leniency

While acknowledging teenage love is crucial, blanket decriminalisation under POCSO is not advisable. Older adolescents or adults can manipulate younger partners emotionally in a phenomenon known as ‘sexual grooming’ — to gain trust and exploit them. In relationships with huge age gaps, power imbalances may mean coerced consent. Very young adolescents, aged 10–14, may not be emotionally or physically ready for sexual activity, even if they verbally agree.

Overbroad leniency may also weaken safeguards that help protect children from predators, trafficking, and online abuse. If the law begins assuming consent in all adolescent relationships, police may ignore early signs of abuse as mere “teenage romance.” Many abusers exploit a victim’s confusion, guilt, or silence and blanket decriminalisation may open dangerous loopholes.

A Nuanced Reform Needed

Reforms must protect adolescent autonomy without diluting POCSO’s core objective: child protection. A “close-in-age” exemption or a “Romeo-Juliet clause” should be introduced to allow consensual relationships with age gaps of 2–3 years. This would reduce the risk of manipulation while recognising adolescent agency. The Law Commission has recommended such an exemption, though at the sentencing stage.

A clear definition of ‘consent’ should also be added to the Act, along with illustrative examples.

Police must be trained to distinguish peer intimacy from exploitation. Sensitisation is essential to prevent moral policing and the shaming of young couples. Cyber tools can help detect grooming patterns. Digital evidence like chats, emails, and images can reveal coercive language or sudden sexualisation, while metadata can establish timelines. Trained counsellors or child welfare officers should be present during initial investigations to sensitively identify grooming and guide both police and victims.

Courts, too, must avoid applying POCSO mechanically and instead interpret consent contextually. In complex cases, they can involve expert committees or psychologists to assess relationships and potential manipulation.

Finally, as the Supreme Court suggested, a national sex education policy is long overdue. Despite having over 250 million adolescents, India lacks a comprehensive, age-appropriate curriculum on sex education. It must go beyond biology to address reproductive health, contraception, consent, teen pregnancy, STIs, digital intimacy, and recognising abuse. Schools must offer safe spaces and accurate information, helping adolescents understand their bodies, choices, and rights.