The Issue with Criminalising All Adolescent Relationships : A Legal and Policy Analysis
✍️ By Suryavanshi IAS | For UPSC Mains & Prelims Preparation
Context: Supreme Court Judgment (May 2025)
The Supreme Court’s verdict in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents is a watershed moment in India’s legal discourse on adolescent sexuality. It highlighted the gap between law and social reality, especially when POCSO (2012) is applied to consensual relationships involving adolescents.
Key Case Summary: A 7-Year Legal Ordeal
-
A 14-year-old girl from West Bengal eloped with a 25-year-old man.
-
Her mother filed a case, triggering legal charges under:
-
POCSO Act (Sec 6) – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault
-
IPC – Kidnapping, Rape
-
Child Marriage Prohibition Act
-
-
Despite being restored to her family, the girl left again, faced social stigma, and later married the man. They had a child.
-
The man was sentenced to 20 years, even though:
-
The girl did not view herself as a victim.
-
She fought to free him and lived in extreme hardship.
-
What Did the Courts Say?
Calcutta High Court (2022)
-
Acquitted the accused out of empathy.
-
Recognised the girl's agency but made a problematic statement that women must “control urges.”
-
Faced public backlash for patriarchal remarks.
Supreme Court (2023–25)
-
Took up the case suo motu.
-
Restored conviction, but used Article 142 to not impose jail sentence.
-
Highlighted:
“If we send the accused to jail, the worst sufferer will be the victim herself.”
Expert Committee Report (2024)
-
Found that the girl’s trauma came from the legal process, not the relationship.
-
Described the legal system’s failure: lack of support, debt, stigma, humiliation.
What is the Core Legal Problem?
Under POCSO:
-
Any sexual act with a person below 18 = statutory rape
-
No distinction between rape and consensual adolescent love
-
Ignores agency, social context, and intent
Ground Realities (Data)
| Study | Findings |
|---|---|
| Enfold (2016–2020) | 24.3% POCSO cases in 3 states involved romantic relationships. 82% of girls did not testify. |
| P39A x Enfold | 25.4% of aggravated cases involved consensual adolescent relationships. |
International Standards
-
UNCRC (General Comment No. 20):
Advises states to avoid criminalising consensual, non-exploitative adolescent sexual activity. -
Medical View: Adolescents aged 16–18 undergo normal sexual development.
Key Constitutional and Legal Principles
| Principle | Article / Provision |
|---|---|
| Right to Privacy | Article 21 (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case) |
| Complete Justice | Article 142 |
| Best Interest of Child | JJ Act + UNCRC |
| Protection vs. Overcriminalisation | Debate in POCSO application |
Legal:
-
Revisit POCSO’s age of consent to reflect 16+ with safeguards.
-
Add exceptions for:
-
Non-coercive acts
-
Similar age adolescents
-
Absence of power imbalance
-
Policy:
-
Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) in schools
-
Life-skills training for adolescents
-
Data collection on adolescent relationships
-
Counselling & legal support for girls in conflict with law
Challenges Ahead
| Challenge | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Judicial inconsistency | Some HCs are sympathetic, others follow strict POCSO |
| Lack of child welfare infrastructure | CWCs poorly staffed, slow |
| Social stigma | Girls often abandoned or forced into shelter homes |
| Patriarchal lens | Courts often blame girls for “losing honour” |
Q. The POCSO Act, while designed to protect children, may end up harming adolescents in consensual relationships. Critically analyse.
Answer outline:
-
Introduce POCSO and objective
-
Highlight data on romantic cases
-
Discuss Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents case
-
Analyse current flaws
-
Suggest way forward (legal + policy)
-
Conclude with “justice must empower, not punish”
Previous Year UPSC Questions
GS Paper 2 – 2022
Q. Examine the challenges faced in the implementation of laws meant to protect children in India. Suggest reforms.
📌 Include POCSO + JJ Act + shelter homes + adolescent agency.
Prelims Practice Question
Q. Which of the following empowers the Supreme Court to deliver complete justice in any cause or matter?
a) Article 32
b) Article 136
c) Article 142
d) Article 226
Answer: c) Article 142
Conclusion
The case reflects a broader policy failure — laws meant for protection are punishing the very people they intend to help. It's time to redefine protection, not just as punishment, but as support — especially for older adolescents navigating complex relationships in a patriarchal society.
Justice must be reimagined — not as imprisonment, but as empowerment.
No comments:
Post a Comment