Love या Crime? | Supreme Court’s Romeo-Juliet Clause Proposal in POCSO Explained

Love या Crime? | Supreme Court’s Romeo-Juliet Clause Proposal in POCSO Explained


Is consensual teenage love a crime under POCSO? 🤔
The Supreme Court of India has proposed the Romeo–Juliet Clause to address cases where consensual relationships between adolescents are criminalized under the POCSO Act.

In this video, we explain:
• What is the Romeo–Juliet Clause
• Why the Supreme Court proposed it
• Impact on POCSO cases
• Difference between consensual love & crime
• Legal implications for students & judiciary exams

The Supreme Court has asked the Union government to introduce a ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to exempt genuine adolescent relationships from criminal prosecution by their families and others who use the law to settle scores.

The Supreme Court has urged the Union government to consider introducing a “Romeo–Juliet clause” in the POCSO Act to protect genuine, consensual adolescent relationships from criminal prosecution. The court noted that POCSO is frequently misused by families to punish teenage romantic relationships, leading to young boys being jailed despite mutual consent.
Justice Sanjay Karol highlighted that such misuse distorts the purpose of the law, which was enacted to protect children from sexual abuse. The court expressed concern that privileged families manipulate POCSO, while truly vulnerable child victims often remain unheard due to fear, poverty, or stigma.
The judgment directed that a copy be sent to the Law Secretary to take steps to curb this misuse. The court clarified that age determination must follow legal hierarchy under the Juvenile Justice Act, with medical tests as a last resort. It also stressed that courts must carefully examine consent, mutual affection, and the nature of adolescent relationships before criminalising them.


• The Supreme Court of India has recognised that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is being misused in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships, often resulting in prolonged incarceration of young men due to disputed age claims and family opposition.
• The case discussed arose from a bail order in a POCSO matter where the Allahabad High Court had granted bail and directed mandatory medical age determination to prevent false implication.
• The Supreme Court ruled that bail courts cannot issue broad policy directions or convert bail proceedings into full-scale inquiries, and that mandatory medical age tests at the bail stage exceed judicial limits.
• Despite setting aside these blanket directions, the Court explicitly acknowledged the misuse of POCSO to settle personal scores and to criminalise normal teenage relationships.
• The Court flagged the need for a “Romeo-Juliet clause” to protect genuine, consensual adolescent relationships, particularly where the age difference is minimal, while ensuring that age determination follows statutory procedures.
• The judgment emphasised the need to strike a balance between child protection and personal liberty, without weakening safeguards or permitting misuse of the law.


📚 Perfect for Law students, Judiciary aspirants, UGC NET, APO & Legal awareness.