Adolescent relationships have long presented a complex legal and ethical challenge for Indian courts. The interplay between social realities, evolving norms, and rigid statutory frameworks underscores the ongoing debate over the treatment of consensual intimacies among adolescents. Both Section 375(D)(6) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) define minors as individuals under 18 years of age, thereby criminalizing all sexual activities involving them. This blanket approach actively denies adolescents their rights to sexual autonomy and privacy, often disregarding consensual relationships, especially among those aged 16 to 18. Such criminalization raises critical questions about its impact on fundamental rights and the broader implications for adolescent development and societal norms which we will be discussing in the article.
Understanding Adolescent Development and Consensual Intimacies
Adolescence is a pivotal stage of human development characterized by physical, emotional, and psychological changes. The emergence of romantic and sexual relationships is a natural aspect of this phase. However, the current legal framework criminalizes consensual sexual activities among adolescents, framing such behaviour as inherently exploitative. This approach conflicts with scientific understandings of adolescent development, which recognize the exploration of intimacy as a crucial part of growth.
The right to privacy, enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, encompasses freedom from interference in personal and intimate matters. Multiple judicial pronouncements have reinforced the importance of dignity and autonomy as core components of privacy. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of autonomy as the cornerstone of human dignity resonates strongly with these principles. Autonomy, devoid of external interference, is indispensable for individuals to make informed choices about their lives, including matters of intimacy.
Legislative Intent Behind POCSO and Its Contradictions
The POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment. Its preamble emphasizes the best interests of the child, aligning with international conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). However, the Act’s rigid definition of a “child” as anyone under 18 and its disregard for consent create a paradox. By criminalizing consensual relationships between adolescents, the law deviates from its stated objectives, often harming the very individuals it seeks to protect.
The gender-specific language of certain provisions within POCSO, such as Section 3, disproportionately targets male adolescents, violating the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Simultaneously, the exclusion of consent in cases involving minors infringes upon the sexual autonomy of female adolescents, thereby violating Article 21. These contradictions highlight the need for a nuanced approach that distinguishes between exploitative and consensual relationships.
Recent Jurisprudence: Judicial Responses and Recommendations
The Supreme Court of India and several High Courts have addressed the discrepancies between statutory provisions and the realities of adolescent relationships, often adopting progressive interpretations to mitigate the harsh consequences of the POCSO in cases involving consensual relationships. For instance, in Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), the Court read down Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC, holding that sexual intercourse with a minor wife amounts to rape, and observed the need for a nuanced approach under POCSO when dealing with adolescent relationships (Para 93). Similarly, inAlakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India (2018), the Court stressed avoiding over-criminalization in consensual adolescent relationships, emphasizing that judicial sensitivity is necessary to protect rather than punish children who are victims of circumstances (Para 48). The importance of balancing strict enforcement with fairness was highlighted inState of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000), where the Court stated that the law must reflect both the letter and spirit of justice in complex social situations (Para 15). In Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), the Court further recognized the socio-cultural context of adolescent relationships, cautioning against misapplication of the law that could cause harm (Para 22).
Several High Courts have also contributed to this evolving jurisprudence. The Calcutta High Court, in Ranjit Rajbanshi v. State of West Bengal, acquitted the accused in a consensual adolescent relationship, emphasizing that the application of Section 3 of POCSO should not lead to injustice in such cases. It noted that statutes designed to protect children must not be misapplied in consensual teenage relationships. Similarly, the Madras High Court, in Vijayalakshmi v. State, highlighted that many POCSO cases stem from familial disapproval of adolescent relationships, deeming the criminalization of natural adolescent behaviour counterproductive. The Meghalaya High Court, in Silvestar Khonglah v. State of Meghalaya,cautioned against the misuse of stringent laws in cases involving adolescents, emphasizing the need to safeguard minors’ rights without criminalizing consensual behaviour. The Delhi High Court, in X v. State (2022), granted bail to a young accused, warning against rigid application of POCSO in consensual adolescent relationships to avoid stigmatization.
These judgments collectively underscore the judiciary’s recognition of changing societal norms and the importance of adopting an empathetic approach to adolescent relationships under POCSO. However, they also reveal the limitations of judicial discretion in the absence of legislative reform. While courts have sought to mitigate the adverse effects of rigid legal provisions, the need for comprehensive legislative action remains paramount to ensure justice is served while protecting the rights of young individuals.
Comparative International Perspectives
Globally, countries have adopted diverse approaches to address the complexities of adolescent relationships, tailoring legal frameworks to balance child protection with respect for autonomy and social realities. These approaches are often inspired by philosophical principles that underpin the development of law and jurisprudence in this area. For instance, South Africa’s Constitutional Court struck down provisions criminalizing consensual sexual activity among adolescents aged 12 to 16, citing violations of dignity and privacy. This decision aligns with the principles of Ubuntu—an African philosophy emphasizing community, dignity, and restorative justice. Subsequently, amendments in 2015 introduced age-appropriate exceptions, emphasizing counseling and education, reflecting the belief that legal interventions should heal rather than harm.
In Canada, the age of consent is set at 16, with close-in-age exemptions for individuals aged 12 to 16, provided the age difference does not exceed two years. This approach embodies the philosophical tenets of liberal individualism, balancing the need to protect minors from exploitation while respecting their autonomy and evolving capacity for decision-making. This aligns with John Stuart Mill’s harm principle. Similarly, in United Kingdom’s legal framework, with an age of consent set at 16, prioritizes protecting adolescents from exploitation without over-criminalizing consensual relationships. This approach reflects the influence of social contract theory, particularly as articulated by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which stresses the mutual responsibilities between the individual and the state to create a just and equitable society. In Australia, age-of-consent laws vary across states (typically 16 to 17) and incorporate close-in-age exemptions. These laws are grounded in communitarian ethics, which stress collective well-being and social responsibility. Educational initiatives on healthy relationships and consent underscore the importance of empowering young individuals within a community framework.
Germany’s approach, with an age of consent set at 14, provided the partner is not in a position of power, draws from Kantian ethics, particularly the concept of treating individuals as ends in themselves. This ensures autonomy is respected, while also safeguarding against coercion and exploitation. France recently raised the age of consent to 15, imposing stricter penalties for significant age differences, reflecting egalitarianism and feminist legal theory. These perspectives address power imbalances in relationships while safeguarding equality and autonomy. In the Philippines, the 2022 amendment raised the age of consent from 12 to 16, embodying principles of child-centric jurisprudence and the best interest of the child philosophy. This approach, rooted in the writings of thinkers like Rousseau, emphasizes nurturing the developmental needs and welfare of children over punitive measures.
Brazil’s legal framework, with an age of consent at 14 and contextual evaluations for close-in-age relationships, emphasizes the philosophy of proportionality, influenced by Aristotelian ethics. This ensures that legal responses are measured, context-sensitive, and reflective of societal norms. In Japan, the ongoing debate regarding the reform and standardization of age-of-consent laws reflects Confucian ethics. These ethics emphasize harmony, respect for authority, and the evolving responsibilities of young individuals within society.
India’s Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act currently sets the age of consent at 18, without provisions for close-in-age exemptions. This often results in the criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships. To address this, India can draw lessons from global practices that incorporate such exemptions, ensuring young individuals in consensual relationships are not unduly penalized. Introducing counselling and educational interventions focused on rehabilitation, inspired by restorative justice and the “best interest of the child” principles, could shift the focus from punitive measures to holistic development. Legislative reforms supporting judicial discretion, as seen in certain judgments, could ensure consistency in handling such cases. A rights-based framework emphasizing adolescent autonomy, psychological maturity, and social realities would align India’s approach with international best practices while addressing the country’s cultural and societal complexities.
Globally, there is growing recognition of the need for nuanced frameworks to handle adolescent relationships. Countries strive to balance the protection of minors with respecting their developing autonomy, all while considering cultural contexts and individual circumstances. The ongoing debate about achieving this balance underscores the importance of comprehensive legal and policy reforms. For India, adopting such measures would modernize its legal framework and promote a more empathetic and effective approach to adolescent relationships.
The Need for Legislative Reform
The current legal framework in India often conflates consensual and exploitative sexual acts, treating any sexual activity involving minors as criminal offenses. This one-size-fits-all approach overlooks the nuanced realities of adolescent relationships and fails to account for the psychological maturity of individuals aged 16 to 18. While protecting minors from sexual exploitation remains a priority, legislative reform is necessary to strike a balance between safeguarding children and respecting the autonomy of adolescents.
First, it is crucial to differentiate between exploitative acts and consensual relationships. The law should not treat all sexual interactions involving minors as inherently criminal. Instead, it should focus on the nature of the relationship and the context in which it occurs. Introducing close-in-age exemptions, often referred to as “Romeo and Juliet” laws, can help ensure that consensual relationships between individuals of similar age, especially those within a small age gap, are not unduly criminalized.
Incorporating adolescent perspectives is another key component of reform. Adolescents are uniquely positioned to offer valuable insights into their experiences and desires. Policymakers should engage with stakeholders, including psychologists, educators, and child rights activists, to ensure that laws are informed by the realities of adolescent development and relationships. Such consultations would ensure that the voices of young people are heard and that laws are tailored to their specific needs and experiences.
Moreover, promoting counselling and education over criminalization is essential. Non-punitive interventions, such as counselling, awareness programs, and relationship education, should replace criminal penalties in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships. This approach can help address any psychological or emotional issues while preserving the dignity and autonomy of the young individuals involved.
Finally, it is important to amend both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to make them more reflective of contemporary social dynamics. Revising the age of consent to reflect the maturity of adolescents, while ensuring protections against exploitation, would be an important step. Additionally, introducing gender-neutral language in these statutes would address any existing biases and promote equality before the law.
Conclusion
The criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships under the IPC and POCSO Act reflects a dissonance between statutory law and societal realities. While the judiciary has taken steps to address this gap, meaningful change requires legislative intervention. Recognizing the autonomy and dignity of adolescents is not merely a matter of legal necessity but also a step toward fostering a society that values human rights and personal freedoms.
Reforms must strike a balance between protecting minors from exploitation and respecting their right to make informed choices about their lives. By aligning the legal framework with contemporary social norms and international best practices, India can ensure a more just and equitable approach to adolescent relationships.
The Author is a Senior Editor at the Constitutional Law Society and a third-year student of National Law University Odisha, Cuttack.
Constitutional Law Society 
POCSO is progressive yet oversimplified.. it’s a journey..
LikeLike