I. ABSTRACT
Cases involving adolescent elopement have increasingly exposed a difficult question within Indian criminal law: Should consensual relationships between older adolescents be treated in the same manner as predatory sexual offences? Although the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was enacted to shield children from abuse and exploitation, its application to relationships involving individuals between sixteen and eighteen years of age has generated considerable judicial and academic debate.
The issue becomes particularly significant when adolescents leave their homes voluntarily to avoid family pressure, domestic violence, or opposition to relationships based on caste, religion, or social background. In such situations, the legal framework often treats the minor exclusively as a victim, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the relationship. As a result, criminal proceedings may be initiated even where there are no allegations of coercion, deception, or abuse.
This article examines the legal and practical consequences of applying the POCSO Act to consensual adolescent relationships. It analyses the statutory presumptions contained in Sections 29 and 30, the interaction between POCSO and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the approach adopted by Indian courts in addressing such disputes. Particular attention is given to recent judicial developments, including observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh.[1]
The study argues that the present framework does not adequately distinguish exploitative conduct from voluntary adolescent relationships. It explores the possibility of introducing a limited close-in-age exception that preserves the protective purpose of the Act while recognising the constitutional values of autonomy, dignity, privacy, and personal liberty.
- INTRODUCTION
The constitutional basis for protective legislation in India is found in Article 15 of the Constitution.[2] While Article 15 guarantees equality and prohibits discrimination by the State, clause (3) permits the enactment of special measures for the welfare and protection of women and children. Exercising this constitutional authority, and in furtherance of India’s commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,[3] Parliament enacted the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.[4] The legislation was intended to address deficiencies in the earlier criminal law framework relating to child sexual abuse and exploitation.
A central feature of the POCSO Act is its age-based approach to consent. Under Section 2(1)(d),[5] every person below the age of eighteen years is treated as a child for the purposes of the Act. The law does not recognise the legal validity of consent given by a minor. This framework creates a clear legal distinction between minors and adults; however, it leaves little room for recognising the realities of relationships involving older adolescents who fall close to the statutory age threshold.
During my judicial internship, I noticed that many POCSO cases were not about predatory abuse at all, but about teenage couples who had run away together, where angry parents used the law to break up self-arranged marriages or consensual live‑in relationships. In several matters, the entire case seemed to turn on a single piece of paper: the girl’s Class 10 marksheet, treated as conclusive proof of minority, even when the boy said he genuinely did not know her exact age. Sitting through these hearings made it very clear that the strict age cutoff leaves trial courts with almost no space to think about adolescent choice, and it is usually only at the High Court level that judges even begin to grapple with questions of autonomy and consent in such relationships.
[1] State of U.P. v. Anurudh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40.
[2] Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 15.
[3] United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989.
[4] The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012).
[5] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, section 2(1)(d).