The Allahabad High Court has recommended that the Law Commission of India propose statutory amendments to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, cautioning that a rigid application of the law against adolescent couples can result in greater injustice, especially when such unions result in children.
A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev issued the directions in an order dated October 5. The judges highlighted that penal provisions must be assessed against prevailing domestic conditions, urging the law panel to explore non-custodial sentencing options, such as community service, to avoid breaking up families formed through legal unawareness under the pretext of child protection.
Judicial Review of Adolescent Relationships
The observations arose during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition filed by an accused facing POCSO allegations, who sought the custody and release of his partner from state custody. According to case records, the couple had eloped and formally declared their marriage through a joint affidavit executed on September 1, 2025.
Representing both the state and the young woman’s father, Advocate Deepakh Kapoor opposed the plea, arguing that family records indicated she was a minor. Authorities had previously transferred her to a shelter facility, Bal Griha, where she gave birth to a child fathered by the petitioner. At the time of the hearing, the infant was over two months old.
The bench noted that the matter extended beyond a basic matrimonial claim because an infant was now dependent on the petitioner for parental care and economic support, which would become impossible if he were imprisoned under statutory provisions.
Social Realities and Educational Responsibilities
Addressing the legislative framework, the high court noted that statutory drafting did not sufficiently account for Indian social circumstances, where significant portions of the populace remain illiterate or semi-literate and lack awareness of constitutional rights, statutory duties, and legal liabilities.
The bench observed that emotional and physical attraction toward the opposite sex represents a natural stage of human development for a 15-year-old child. The judges remarked that expecting young individuals to comprehend complex legal repercussions requires the state to first ensure they receive meaningful schooling up to the age of majority alongside vocational training to achieve self-reliance.
Age Determination and Final Ruling
Turning to the woman’s age, the court observed that standard evidentiary records—a formal birth certificate or a matriculation certificate—were unavailable. Her father informed the bench that she had left school after Class V.
In the absence of school board records or a birth certificate, the bench considered a medical ossification test that estimated her age at approximately 18 years. Treating her as an adult on the basis of the medical findings, the high court allowed her to leave with her husband after she formally expressed her wish to reside with him.
