Supreme Court questions blanket criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships

Source: The post Supreme Court questions blanket criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships has been created, based on the article “The issue with criminalising all adolescent relationships” published in “The Hindu” on 16th July 2025

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Vulnerable sections of population

Context: The Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents revisited a criminal case under POCSO involving a consensual adolescent relationship. It sparked a national debate on how India’s legal system treats adolescent sexuality, prompting deeper reflection on justice, agency, and reform in child protection laws.

For detailed information on Criminalising consensual relationships read this article here

Revisiting Justice in an Extraordinary Case

1. Supreme Court’s Intervention Using Article 142: The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to avoid sentencing a man convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Despite his legal guilt, the Court prioritised the woman’s well-being and declared imprisonment would only harm her more.
2. Background of the Case: A 14-year-old girl from rural West Bengal left home to live with a 25-year-old man. Despite returning briefly to her family, she faced stigma and later married the man. He was arrested and sentenced to 20 years, although the relationship was consensual.
3. High Court and Supreme Court Responses: The Calcutta High Court acquitted the man citing socio-economic conditions and lack of awareness, but also made problematic remarks. After public backlash, the Supreme Court restored the conviction but ultimately chose not to sentence him, acknowledging the victim’s suffering.

Listening to the Voice of the Adolescent

1. Court-Mandated Expert Committee: The Supreme Court directed a multidisciplinary committee to assess the woman’s wishes. The report revealed her emotional trauma, financial burdens, and the systemic failure that intensified her hardship.
2. Systemic Failures Recognised: The Court acknowledged societal and legal breakdowns—community humiliation, family abandonment, and media sensationalism—that deepened her ordeal rather than protected her.
3. Irony of the Legal System: The woman’s fight was not against the man but against a legal system that punished her autonomy. She spent years trying to free her partner, while battling debt and isolation.

The Larger Reality Behind “Romantic” Cases

1. Empirical Trends in POCSO Cases: Studies show that nearly a quarter of POCSO cases involve consensual adolescent relationships. In many of these, victims do not testify against their partners, revealing a disconnect between law and lived realities.
2. Judicial Reluctance for Reform: While some courts recognise the overreach of POCSO, others—like the Bombay High Court—have refused to dismiss similar cases, citing the need for legislative clarity on adolescent relationships.
3. Limits of Case-Based Exceptions: The inconsistency in judgments highlights the failure of piecemeal solutions and underlines the urgent need for structural legal reform.

Flawed Consent and Denied Agency

1. The Question of Consent: While the girl’s consent was legally flawed due to her age and vulnerability, the law ignored the cultural and social context that shapes such decisions, including poverty and child marriage norms.
2. Victim, but of What?: The girl did not consider herself a victim of the relationship. Her trauma stemmed from institutional responses—police, courts, and social stigma—not the relationship itself.
3. Legal Identity vs Personal Experience: By labelling all underage sexual activity as exploitative, the law denies adolescent girls their agency and voices, reducing them to passive victims regardless of context.

Rethinking Legal Assumptions and Moving Forward

1. Need for Structural Legal Reforms: The blanket criminalisation of adolescent sexual activity under POCSO fails to reflect the nuanced realities. Justice demands recognition of consensual relationships above 16, with safeguards against coercion and abuse of power.
2. Recommendations from the Court: The Court urged the government to introduce sexuality education, life-skills training, counselling, and proper data collection—marking a shift towards support-oriented interventions over punitive actions.
3. Balancing Protection and Autonomy: True justice lies in supporting adolescents with informed choices, not criminalising their actions rooted in structural limitations. The law must evolve to balance protection with empowerment.

Question for practice:

Discuss the challenges posed by the POCSO Act in addressing consensual adolescent relationships and the reforms suggested by the Supreme Court in the Re Right to Privacy of Adolescents case.