Today, the POCSO has become limited to preserve the honour of families when adolescents elope with their partners. These laws have become a tool to neglect the real world adolescent behaviour and assigning the blame on one party.
The bench of BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadev made various observations referring the aforementioned while hearing a suo moto case on adolescents’ right to privacy. This becomes an important issue considering the future of the statute itself and the obvious need of awareness regarding adolescents.
The Court observed that adolescents between 15-18 years, go through a period of substantial changes emotionally and psychology, raising the question whether consensual relationship involving minors should be prosecution. Additionally, the court observed that cases filed under POCSO must be verified if they genuinely fall within the POCSO jurisdiction.
Legal Framework:
Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act defines a child as any person below eighteen years of age. The Act does not recognise consent as a defence when the victim is below eighteen years. Consequently, any sexual act involving minors constitute an offence under the Act, regardless, of whether the relationship was voluntary or consensual.
The legislative intent behind this strict approach was to ensure comprehensive protection against child sexual abuse and prevent exploitation by adults. However, the blanket criminalisation of all sexual conduct involving adolescents has generated practical and constitutional concerns.
References: