Contending that laws meant to protect children are increasingly being misused to punish consensual teenage relationships, Supreme Court has asked the Union government to consider introducing a “Romeo–Juliet” clause to protect genuine adolescent couples from harsh criminal action.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh made the observation while setting aside a series of directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in a bail case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).The High Court had directed that in every POCSO case, police must conduct a medical test to determine the age of the victim at the very start of investigation and that bail courts could examine and even reject school or birth records if they found them doubtful.
The Supreme Court said the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing these directions while hearing a bail plea. It held that bail courts cannot conduct “mini trials”, cannot decide disputed facts like age conclusively and cannot override the procedure fixed by the parliament for determining age.But while doing so, the apex court also spoke at length about a larger and growing problem - the misuse of the POCSO law in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents.
It said the POCSO Act is meant to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. But in many cases, it was being used as a weapon by families who oppose relationships between young people.“The POCSO Act is one of the most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion,” the Court said.
The Court noted that courts across the country have repeatedly seen cases where the age of the girl is wrongly shown as below 18 to bring the boy under the harsh provisions of POCSO, even when the relationship was consensual and between teenagers who are close in age.“Not only are instances rife where the age of the victim is misrepresented to make the incident fall under the stringent provisions of this law but also there are numerous instances where this law is used by families in opposition to relationships between young people,” it said.
The Bench said this kind of misuse creates a deep injustice. On one side are children who truly need protection but cannot access the system because of poverty, fear or stigma. On the other side are those who misuse the law to settle personal scores.
Follow us
