The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasised the need to differentiate between cases of rape and genuine romantic relationships among youngsters nearing adulthood.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, while hearing a petition on whether the age of consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act should be reduced from 18 to 16, observed that societal realities must be taken into account.
Referring to the growing interactions in co-educational institutions and universities, the bench remarked: “Now, they develop feelings for each other. Can you say it is criminal to love? We have to keep a distinction between a criminal act like rape, etc., from this.”
The judges underscored that romantic cases where young couples wish to marry should not be treated on par with serious criminal offences. They noted that many such cases end in trauma when parents file complaints under POCSO, leading to the male partner’s arrest. “This is the harsh reality in society,” the bench said, also pointing out that POCSO cases are sometimes invoked to conceal consensual elopements.
Senior advocate H.S. Phoolka, appearing for the petitioner organisation, argued for safeguards in such situations. The court said the police must assess whether a case involves kidnapping, trafficking, or a genuine relationship.
Phoolka informed the bench that another Supreme Court bench is already examining a similar issue concerning the age of consent. The matter was adjourned to August 26, with Phoolka directed to place relevant top court orders on record.
The Centre, in written submissions in a related case, has strongly defended maintaining the statutory age of consent at 18 years. It argued that the threshold was a “deliberate, well-considered, and coherent” policy designed to protect minors from exploitation.
Diluting this age limit, the government said, or creating exceptions under the guise of adolescent romance, would be “legally unsound and dangerous.”
The Supreme Court’s remarks have reignited the debate on balancing child protection laws with the realities of adolescent relationships. The upcoming hearing on August 26 may see the court examine past precedents and weigh policy concerns against evolving social dynamics.
