Consensual Adolescent Relationships and POCSO: The ‘Romantic Cases’ Debate

A sixteen-year-old and a nineteen-year-old are in a relationship. The families find out, and a complaint follows. Whatever either of them says, the law may treat the older partner as a serious offender. This is the situation behind what is now called the “romantic cases” debate, and it makes the consensual adolescent relationship POCSO question one of the most discussed in Indian criminal law. This article sets out what the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) actually provides, how courts have handled these cases, what the Law Commission recommended, and the best arguments on both sides.

POCSO and the Age of Consent: Can an Adolescent Legally Agree?

POCSO defines a child as any person below the age of eighteen (section 2(1)(d)). Penetrative sexual assault is punished by section 4, and after the 2019 amendment the minimum sentence is ten years, extendable to life, with a higher range of twenty years to life where the child is below sixteen. Aggravated forms under section 6 attract twenty years to life or death. Sexual assault without penetration (section 8) carries three to five years. The Act contains no defence of consent and no exception for the age of the accused.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is consistent: section 63 treats sexual intercourse with a woman under eighteen as rape “with or without her consent”. The age of eighteen has been the line since the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, and the Supreme Court in Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800 (October 2017), read down the marital exception so that sexual intercourse with a wife under eighteen is also rape, bringing the penal law into line with the child-protection statute. The legal position is therefore clear and not in doubt: an adolescent under eighteen cannot consent.

Why Consensual Adolescent Relationships Become POCSO Cases

These situations have become central to the debate surrounding consensual relationships under POCSO. The Act was designed to protect children from adults who exploit them. In practice, many prosecutions arise from relationships between adolescents or between an adolescent and a young adult, where a family objects, often to an elopement or a relationship across caste or community lines, and complains. In these cases the girl may deny coercion in court, may be living with the accused, and may have a child. The accused may then face a minimum sentence of ten years or more for a relationship that the complainant herself describes as voluntary.

That mismatch is what courts have been responding to. Their responses fall into four categories: bail, quashing, sentencing and, rarely, direct constitutional relief.

How Indian Courts Have Handled Consensual Relationship POCSO Cases

Bail

In AK v. State (NCT of Delhi) (20 October 2022), Jasmeet Singh J. of the Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused who had married a seventeen-year-old and said that POCSO was not meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between young adults, while accepting that a minor’s consent has no legal effect. It was a bail order only, and it did not hold the accused innocent.

Quashing

In Vijayalakshmi v. State (27 January 2021), the Madras High Court quashed a pending POCSO case where a minor had eloped and married. It warned of the misuse of the Act against adolescent relationships and suggested that Parliament reconsider the definition of a child. Quashing is difficult in POCSO cases: the offence is not treated as a private wrong that parties can compromise, and High Courts differ. A 2026 Madras High Court decision, Arumugam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, is reported as holding that a romantic relationship is not an exception to POCSO and a child under eighteen cannot consent; we have seen only the headline and so do not rely on its detail.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of a Calcutta High Court judgment in 2023 that had offered observations on the duty of adolescent girls to control “sexual urges”. On 20 August 2024 it set aside that judgment and restored the convictions, constituted an expert committee before sentencing, and emphasised that the Child Welfare Committee must be involved after a report under section 19(6) of POCSO and that this is not an empty formality. On 23 May 2025 (In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2025 INSC 778, Oka and Bhuyan JJ.), the Court held that consent is not an exception to rape under POCSO, but, because the survivor had married the accused and they had a child, it used Article 142 to decline to impose the mandatory minimum. It said the case was not to be treated as a precedent, and directed support for the survivor and child. It also asked the Union to constitute an expert committee on the questions the case raised; we have not found any report of its conclusions.

In Maruthupandi v. State (reported June 2026), a bench set aside a POCSO conviction under Article 142 after the couple had married following the victim’s majority, again limiting its order to the facts. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh, 2026 INSC 47 (9 January 2026), the Court held that a High Court deciding bail cannot issue general directions requiring a medical age test in every POCSO case, since age is for trial. In a closing post-script it referred to possible reform including a “Romeo-Juliet clause” to protect genuine adolescent relationships, with safeguards against misuse, and sent a copy of the order to the Law Secretary. That is an observation, not a holding and not a direction to legislate, though some media reports suggested otherwise.

What did the Law Commission Recommend?

The Law Commission of India, in its 283rd Report on the age of consent under POCSO (September 2023), advised against lowering the age of consent from eighteen, saying it was not advisable to tinker with it, because of the risk of exposing minors to exploitation and the interaction with child marriage and trafficking laws. It instead recommended guided judicial discretion in sentencing in cases of “tacit approval” involving older adolescents, by amending sections 4 and 8 of POCSO, with corresponding changes elsewhere. Secondary summaries list the factors a court would weigh, such as the age gap, the absence of a criminal record and later marriage, but we have not been able to confirm those details from the report text and do not set them out here.

The position reflects India’s existing approach to the age of consent under POCSO. In a written reply to the Rajya Sabha on 21 December 2022, the Minister for Women and Child Development said that the question of lowering the age of consent from eighteen to sixteen does not arise.

The Case for and Against a Close-in-age Exception

The debate over adolescent sexuality law begins with a difficult question: should every consensual adolescent relationship attract the same criminal consequences as exploitation? A law that treats all such relationships as serious crimes may push adolescent sexuality underground rather than prevent it. Complaints are often filed by families opposing the relationship rather than by the adolescent against the accused. A mandatory minimum of ten years also limits the court’s ability to distinguish an exploiter from a teenage partner. The adolescent herself may suffer from the prosecution, stigma and loss of a partner or father for her child. A narrow exception, based on a limited age gap and absence of coercion, would allow courts to focus on exploitation.

The argument against is equally serious. A fixed age gives certainty and protects the most vulnerable. It is hard for a court to decide, after the event, that a fifteen-year-old’s consent was free of pressure, and a defence of consent invites cross-examination of the child about her sexual conduct. Power differences are not captured by an age gap. The Law Commission preferred discretion in sentencing precisely because an exception to the offence itself could be exploited by traffickers and by those who coerce marriage. The Supreme Court’s decision of 2025 is clear that consent is no exception under the present law, even where it uses Article 142 to avoid an unjust sentence.

Both views can be held honestly, and the central choice is between an exception to criminal liability, which Parliament alone can create, and discretion in sentence, which the Law Commission favoured.

What Can a Family or an Accused Person Realistically Do?

For the accused, the usual steps are an early application for bail, supported by proof of age and the circumstances of the relationship; challenging the age evidence at the right stage; and, in a small number of cases, an application to quash under section 528 of the BNSS, explained in our guide to quashing criminal proceedings. For the adolescent, the statutory framework gives the right to be heard and to be supported by the Child Welfare Committee, and the Supreme Court has emphasised that this is real. For families, it is worth knowing that a complaint, once the police register it, cannot be withdrawn by agreement, and that a subsequent marriage will not by itself end the case.

Open Questions on POCSO and Consensual Adolescent Relationships

Three questions are unresolved. Whether Parliament will legislate on a close-in-age provision, or the Law Commission’s sentencing discretion, remains to be seen. Whether the expert committee directed by the Supreme Court in 2025 has reported, and with what recommendations, is not known to us. And the extent to which High Courts may quash POCSO proceedings on a settlement, given the Supreme Court’s repeated statement that the orders it has made on Article 142 are not precedents, is not settled.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a consensual relationship legal if one partner is under 18?

No. Under POCSO, a person below 18 is legally a child and cannot give valid consent to sexual activity. Accordingly, a consensual sexual relationship involving a person below 18 can still attract prosecution, even where both partners agreed to the relationship.

Is there a close-in-age or Romeo-Juliet exception in India?

No. In January 2026 the Supreme Court mentioned the idea of a Romeo-Juliet clause in a post-script, but it did not direct one, and Parliament has not enacted one.

What did the Law Commission recommend on the age of consent?

The 283rd Report (September 2023) advised against lowering the age of 18 and recommended guided judicial discretion in sentencing in limited cases involving older adolescents.

Can a POCSO case be quashed if the couple marries?

Sometimes, but there is no rule. The Madras High Court quashed a case on its facts in 2021, while the Supreme Court has used Article 142 in individual cases and said they are not precedents.

Can the minimum sentence be avoided?

Only in exceptional cases. The Supreme Court did not impose the minimum in a 2025 case under Article 142 but said the case was not a precedent.

Sources

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, sections 2(1)(d), 4, 6, 8 and 19 (as amended in 2019); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, section 63 — India Code.
• Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800, October 2017 — Supreme Court Observer.
• In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2025 INSC 778, 23 May 2025; order of 20 August 2024 — Supreme Court Observer; report on the 2024 order.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh, 2026 INSC 47, 9 January 2026 — judgment.
• Maruthupandi v. State, 2026 — LiveLaw report.
• Law Commission of India, Report No. 283, Age of Consent under the POCSO Act, 2012, September 2023 — report.
• Rajya Sabha written reply, 21 December 2022 — Tribune report.
• AK v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Delhi High Court, 20 October 2022 — LiveLaw report.
• Vijayalakshmi v. State, Madras High Court, 27 January 2021 — commentary.