In a significant 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed a growing concern under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — the criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships.
Popularly referred to as the “Romeo-Juliet Clause” judgment, the decision has sparked nationwide debate on POCSO misuse, teenage consent laws in India, and the need for reform in child protection legislation.
Table of contents
Open Table of contents
Background of the Case
The matter originated from directions issued by the Allahabad High Court regarding age determination in POCSO cases at the bail stage. The High Court had suggested routine medical age determination tests, including ossification tests, to establish the victim’s age during bail hearings.
The issue reached the Supreme Court, where the bench examined whether such blanket directions were legally sustainable and consistent with statutory procedures laid down under POCSO and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Key Legal Issue — Age Determination in POCSO Cases
The central question before the Court was:
Can courts order medical age determination tests as a matter of routine during bail proceedings?
The Supreme Court clarified several important principles:
- Bail proceedings should not turn into mini-trials.
- Age determination must strictly follow the statutory hierarchy of evidence prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Rules and POCSO Act.
- Documentary proof (birth certificate, school records, matriculation certificate) takes precedence.
- Medical tests (including ossification) should only be ordered when documentary evidence is unavailable, unreliable, or doubtful.
- Judicial directions cannot override or rewrite procedures laid down by Parliament.
This part of the judgment reinforces procedural discipline in sensitive POCSO matters.
What Is the “Romeo-Juliet Clause”?
While deciding the age-determination issue, the Court made powerful observations on a much larger systemic problem — the misuse of POCSO in cases involving consensual romantic relationships between adolescents close in age.
Under the existing POCSO framework:
- Any sexual activity involving a person below 18 years is treated as a sexual offence.
- Consent of a minor is legally irrelevant — strict liability applies.
However, the Court took judicial notice of ground reality:
Many POCSO prosecutions arise from teenage romantic relationships (often 16–17 years old), triggered by parental opposition, elopement, or social pressure — rather than exploitative abuse.
In this context, the Supreme Court explicitly suggested that Parliament should consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet Clause” — a legal exception or close-in-age provision that would:
- Protect consensual relationships between adolescents close in age
- Shield them from harsh criminal penalties
- Preserve strict punishment for genuine cases of sexual exploitation and abuse
Why This Judgment Is Important
-
Recognition of Ground Reality
For the first time at the apex court level, there is clear acknowledgment that a significant portion of POCSO cases involve consensual teenage relationships rather than predatory behaviour. -
Balancing Protection and Adolescent Autonomy
The observation highlights the tension between:- Protecting children from sexual exploitation
- Respecting evolving maturity and autonomy of older adolescents
-
Reinforcement of Procedural Discipline
The ruling reminds lower courts that bail proceedings must remain limited in scope and cannot be used to short-circuit statutory evidence rules. -
Catalyst for Legislative Reform
The explicit call for a “Romeo-Juliet Clause” may push policymakers to re-examine the rigid age-of-consent framework under POCSO.
Does the Judgment Change the Law?
No — the Supreme Court did not amend the POCSO Act or create any new exception.
It only made a legislative recommendation.
Until Parliament acts:
- The age of consent under POCSO remains 18 years.
- Consensual adolescent relationships technically continue to fall within the statute’s ambit.
- Prosecutors and courts must still apply the law as it stands.
However, this judgment is likely to influence:
- Future judicial interpretation in borderline cases
- Bail and compounding decisions
- National policy discussions on POCSO reform
The Road Ahead
The 2026 “Romeo-Juliet Clause” observation marks a pivotal moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence.
It opens a mature national conversation on:
- Reforming strict liability provisions under POCSO
- Reducing misuse of child protection laws in consensual scenarios
- Creating nuanced legislation that distinguishes exploitation from adolescent intimacy
Whether Parliament introduces a close-in-age exception or related amendments remains to be seen. But the message from the Supreme Court is unmistakable — child protection laws must protect children without inadvertently criminalising normal youth behaviour.
For lawyers, judges, and policymakers in Kolkata and across India, this judgment will be frequently cited in POCSO bail applications, appeals, and reform advocacy in the years to come.