Written by Aatmaja Mishra,
Lex Lumen Research Journal Summer Intern,
June 2026
I. INTRODUCTION.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was enacted as a comprehensive legislative response to the alarming prevalence of child sexual abuse in India.[1] By creating stringent offences, special courts and procedural safeguards, the Statute reflects the constitutional obligation of the State to protect children from exploitation and harm.
However, the strict liability nature of the Act, which disregards consent in all cases involving persons below eighteen years, has produced unintended constitutional consequences. In particular, its application to consensual adolescent relationship raises serious questions regarding privacy, dignity and personal autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.[2]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s recent observation in the Case – State of Uttar Pradesh v Anurudh (2026) recommending legislative consideration of a “Romeo-Juliet clause” represents a critical constitutional development.[3] The Hon’ble Court recognized that the indiscriminate application of POCSO has resulted in the criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships, thereby raising concerns regarding proportionality and liberty.
This observation reflects a deeper constitutional tension between the State’s obligation to protect children and its duty to respect individual dignity and autonomy. The Constitutional challenge lies in harmonising the both within a principled legal framework.
II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF PRIVACY, DIGNITY AND AUTONOMY.
The Constitutional recognition of Privacy as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, marked a transformative moment in the Constitutional Law.[4] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned Case held that – privacy is intrinsic to Life and personal liberty under Article 21 and encompasses bodily integrity, decisional autonomy and the freedom to make intimate personal choices. It also emphasised that dignity forms the core of fundamental rights and that, privacy protects the individual’s ability to shape personal relationships and identity without undue state interference.
This framework was further strengthened in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that consensual intimate relationships lie within the protected sphere of privacy and dignity.[5] The Judgement emphasized that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality and that the State cannot intrude into a private consensual relationship without compelling justification.
Although minors require additional protection due to vulnerability, they are not excluded from constitutional personhood. Adolescents exist in a transitional stage of development characterised by evolving autonomy and psychological maturity. Constitutional Jurisprudence must, therefore, recognise both their need for protection and their emerging dignity and agency.
III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT CHILDREN.
While the Constitution protects individual liberty, it simultaneously imposes an affirmative obligation upon the State to protect children from exploitation. Article 15(3) explicitly permits special provisions for children, while Article 39(e) and (f) require the State to safeguard children from abuse and exploitation.[6] These provisions establish child protection as a constitutional imperative rather than a mere legislative choice.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life under Article 21 as including protection against exploitation and abuse.[7]
These Constitutional mechanisms and the Court decisions, time-to-time confirm that – child protection is rooted in constitutional principles of dignity and equality.
IV. THE STRUCTURE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE OF POCSO.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, reflects the State’s constitutional obligation to protect minors from sexual exploitation.[8] By defining a child as any person below the age of eighteen years and criminalizing all sexual activity involving minors, the objective of the Act is to eliminate exploitation and abuse. The strict liability framework reflects legislative recognition that minors may lack the capacity to provide an informed consent due to developmental vulnerabilities.
However, the absence of any distinction between exploitative abuse and consensual adolescent relationship creates a loophole in the POCSO Act. Interpreting the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case – State of Uttar Pradesh v Anurudh (2026), the existing POCSO Law risks criminalising consensual relationships, thereby intruding upon personal autonomy and dignity.
V. PROPORTIONALITY AND THE ISSUE OF OVERCRIMINALISATION.
The doctrine of proportionality provides the constitutional framework for evaluating restrictions on the Fundamental rights. In Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that any restriction on fundamental rights must pursue a legitimate aim, be rationally connected to that aim, be necessary and be proportionate in its impact.[9] While protecting minors from exploitation is unquestionably a legitimate aim, a blanket criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationship fails the necessary and proportionality requirements.
Similarly, the Court’s decision in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, provides important guidance.[10] The Court held that protective legislation cannot be based on paternalistic assumptions that deny individual autonomy.
Therefore, protection must be empowered rather than control.
VI. THE SUPREME COURT’S ROMEO-JULIET OBSERVATION AND ITS INTERSECTION WITH JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT.
The Supreme Court’s observation in State of Uttar Pradesh v Anurudh[11], represents a significant constitutional development. By recommending legislative consideration of a Romeo Juliet clause, the Court recognised that the rigid application of POCSO produces disproportionate consequences. The observation reflected the Judicial awareness on the fact that adolescents engaged in consensual relationships will eventually suffer severe psychological, social and legal consequences due to criminal prosecution.
The Romeo-Juliet Clause, which is regarded as a shift from a rigid statutory absolutism to a proportional balancing, exempts consensual relationship where the age difference between individuals is minimal and no coercion exists, thereby recognising adolescent autonomy and protection against exploitation.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act adopts a welfare-oriented and rehabilitative approach towards children.[12] It recognises that children require reform, guidance and protection rather than a punitive treatment or an approach. The principle of the best interests of the child lies at the heart of the juvenile justice framework.
However, it is evident that the adolescents prosecuted under POCSO may face criminal stigma and incarceration, undermining their rehabilitation and development. This contradiction between POCSO’s punitive consequences and the Juvenile Justice system’s rehabilitative philosophy highlights the need for harmonisation.
Child protection must not result in outcomes that harm the very individuals the law seeks to protect.
VII. CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY AND LIMITS OF STATE INTERVENTION.
The concept of Constitutional morality, emphasized in several Supreme Court decisions, requires that laws uphold dignity, liberty and equality rather than enforce social conformity.
In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court affirmed that personal relationships must remain free from undue societal interference.[13] This principle underscores the importance of protecting individual autonomy against social and family pressures.
When POCSO is used to criminalise consensual adolescent relationships due to parental or societal disapproval, it risks becoming an instrument of social control rather than protection. Constitutional morality demands the Law to protect individuals from harm without denying their dignity and agency.
VIII. HARMONISING PROTECTION AND PRIVACY – THE CONSTITUTIONAL PATH FORWARD.
The Constitutional solution lies in calibrated reform that preserves child protection while respecting dignity and autonomy.
Introducing close-in-age exemptions would align POCSO with constitutional proportionality and prevents misuse. Such reform would draw a line where the exploitative relationships remain punishable while the consensual ones are treated with sensitivity and utmost care.
IX. CONCLUSION.
A proportionate approach to POCSO, especially after the Romeo-Juliet judgement, ensures protection without sacrificing constitutional liberty.
X. REFERENCES.
[1] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO).
[2] Constitution of India 1950, art.21.
[3] State of Uttar Pradesh v Anurudh (2026) SC.
[4] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[5] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1.
[6] Constitution of India 1950, arts 15(3), 39(e), 39(f).
[7] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161.
[8] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, ss 3-10.
[9] Modern Dental College v State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353.
[10] Anuj Garg v Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1.
[11] supra
[12] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
[13] Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 5 SCC 475.