India’s Romeo–Juliet Dilemma: Criminalizing Love or Protecting Childhood?

Introduction: When Child Protection and Adolescent Relationships Collide with Sexual Intimacy

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) was enacted to protect children from sexual assault, sexual harassment and exploitation. Its central premise is clear: children require special legal protection, and sexual offences against them must be dealt with seriously.

However, a difficult question has repeatedly surfaced before Indian courts: what happens when a criminal complaint involves two adolescents in a genuine, age-proximate relationship, but one or both are below the age of 18?

Can the law distinguish a relationship between young people close in age from conduct involving coercion, grooming, manipulation or sexual exploitation? Or does the absence of a close-in-age exception risk treating substantially different situations alike?

I. What Is a Romeo–Juliet Law?

A Romeo–Juliet clause is a legal exception or defence that may protect certain consensual sexual relationships between adolescents who are close in age from specified criminal consequences arising solely from their minority.

The name refers to young people involved in a romantic relationship. In legal terms, however, the concept is much narrower than a general exemption for teenage relationships.

A carefully drafted provision could establish conditions such as:

• A minimum age for both individuals.
• A maximum permissible age difference between them.
• Evidence that the relationship was voluntary and not the product of coercion, grooming, threats or exploitation.
• Exclusions for persons in positions of trust, authority or control.
• Continued criminal liability for sexual violence, exploitation and other conduct that falls outside the exception.

The precise conditions would have to be determined by the legislature. A Romeo–Juliet clause should not create a blanket immunity merely because an accused person describes a relationship as romantic.

Its purpose would be to distinguish certain close-in-age adolescent relationships from predatory or exploitative conduct while preserving meaningful protection for children.

II. What Is the Current Legal Position ?

Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines a child as any person below the age of 18 years. The Act provides criminal consequences for specified sexual conduct involving a child, subject to the ingredients of the particular offence.

The statutory framework does not generally recognise a child’s consent as a defence to sexual offences merely because the relationship is described as consensual. Consequently, a relationship that the adolescents themselves regard as voluntary may still attract criminal liability if the alleged conduct falls within the relevant provisions of POCSO.

An important clarification: As of October 2026, a general Romeo–Juliet exception has not been incorporated into the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court’s recommendation to consider such a clause is not, by itself, an amendment to the statute. The existing law must therefore be applied in accordance with its provisions and binding judicial decisions.

III. Merits of Introducing a Romeo–Juliet Clause

1. A more proportionate approach to criminal liability

Criminal law must protect vulnerable persons while ensuring that its application remains consistent with fairness and proportionality.

A carefully defined exception could help distinguish a close-in-age relationship from a case involving an adult exploiting a child. It could reduce the risk of imposing serious criminal consequences in circumstances where the relevant statutory policy could reasonably differentiate between peer relationships and abuse.2. Reducing the use of criminal complaints to oppose relationships

2. Recognising adolescent development without abandoning child protection

Adolescence is a stage of emotional, social and psychological development. Legal rules governing sexual activity must nevertheless recognise that children may be vulnerable to pressure, manipulation and unequal power dynamics.

The challenge is to recognise the distinction between age-proximate relationships and exploitative conduct without treating all adolescent relationships as equivalent.

3. Learning from comparative legal approaches

Some jurisdictions have adopted close-in-age provisions, but their conditions differ significantly.

For example, certain United States states provide narrowly defined exceptions or defences subject to minimum-age requirements, age-gap limits and other exclusions. Canadian and German law also illustrate that the treatment of adolescent sexual activity can differ according to the ages involved, the nature of the conduct and the applicable statutory provisions.

IV. Conclusion: Protecting Childhood Without Overcriminalising Adolescence

The proposed Romeo–Juliet clause presents an opportunity to examine whether the law can better distinguish genuine adolescent relationships from sexual exploitation.

The Supreme Court’s observations in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. have brought this question into sharper focus. But the Court’s recommendation is not a substitute for legislative action, and the existing statutory framework continues to govern cases under POCSO.

The way forward requires precision rather than broad exemptions. Any reform must define age limits, identify disqualifying conduct, account for unequal power dynamics and protect children throughout the criminal justice process.

Ultimately, the question is not whether love should be criminalised or childhood protected. It is whether the law can protect children effectively while responding proportionately to genuine close-in-age adolescent relationships.

Where should the law draw the line between protecting childhood and criminalising adolescence? The answer must be guided by child welfare, constitutional fairness, evidence and carefully drafted legislation.

Need legal assistance?

If you are dealing with a criminal case involving child trafficking, sexual exploitation, unlawful confinement or related offences, obtaining case-specific legal guidance can help you understand the applicable law and available remedies.

NyayNiti provides legal assistance in criminal law and related litigation. Contact NyayNiti to discuss your legal concerns and understand the appropriate options available in your circumstances.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and public awareness and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case. The applicable law and available remedies depend on the facts and procedural history. This article discusses the Supreme Court judgment in K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police, 2025 INSC 1473, decided on 19 December 2025.