[Answered] The POCSO Act’s blanket criminalization of adolescent relationships warrants revisit. Critically examine how this approach impacts adolescent autonomy, judicial discretion, and the law’s effectiveness in truly protecting children.

Introduction

India’s POCSO Act, designed to protect children from sexual exploitation, criminalises all adolescent sexual activity. While well-intentioned, its blanket approach raises concerns over autonomy, justice, and effective child protection.

The Legal Framework and Its Rationale

1. The POCSO Act, 2012 defines a ‘child’ as anyone under 18 and criminalises all sexual acts involving minors, even if consensual.
2. Raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 years, aligning with international norms, but without nuanced differentiation between exploitative and non-exploitative adolescent relationships.

The Judicial Conundrum: Consent vs. Protection

1. Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025): Supreme Court upheld conviction under POCSO but refrained from sentencing a man in a consensual relationship with a 14-year-old girl, recognising harm from prolonged judicial intervention.
2. Court acknowledged a “collective failure of systems”, but refused to relax the assumption of exploitation due to legal constraints.
3. Despite international recognition of evolving adolescent capacity (e.g., UNCRC’s General Comment No. 20), Indian law treats adolescents only as victims, denying them agency.

Impact on Adolescent Autonomy

1. Criminalisation often contradicts lived realities of older adolescents (16–18), especially in rural and lower socio-economic settings where early relationships and marriages are common.
2. Enfold and P39A Study (2020): In 25.4% of POCSO cases studied in West Bengal, Assam, Maharashtra, relationships were consensual. In 82% of such cases, the girl refused to testify against the partner.
3. Instead of protection, the law often leads to institutionalisation, family rejection, trauma, and stigma for adolescent girls asserting agency within patriarchal constraints.

Judicial Discretion and Paternalism

1. Courts face limitations due to the rigid structure of the Act.
2. While some High Courts (e.g., Calcutta High Court, 2022) took a humane approach, others (e.g., Bombay High Court, 2025) refused to quash charges citing lack of policy clarity.
3. Lack of scope for judicial discretion in consensual cases reduces scope for context-based justice, often leading to disproportionate sentencing or trauma-driven proceedings.

Misalignment with Ground Realities

1. The law fails to distinguish between:

• Consensual peer relationships and
• Exploitative or coercive acts by adults or persons in positions of authority.

1. It often criminalises marginalised youth for asserting limited choices within societal and economic constraints, especially in child marriage or elopement contexts.

Way Forward: Towards Nuanced Reform

1. Introduce graded consent framework recognising adolescents aged 16–18, while maintaining strict protection from coercion, grooming, or abuse by adults in authority.
2. Expand judicial discretion and allow context-specific rulings.
3. Integrate Comprehensive Sexuality Education, life-skills training, and psychosocial counselling as part of child protection strategies.
4. Encourage community-level engagement to address patriarchal control, stigma, and family abandonment of adolescents.
5. State responses must become support-oriented, not merely punitive.

Conclusion

The POCSO Act must evolve to balance protection with adolescent rights. Reforms enabling discretion, context sensitivity, and agency are essential to safeguard vulnerable youth without criminalising their autonomy or lived experiences.