Why in the News?

The Supreme Court of India’s May 2025 judgment in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents has come into the spotlight due to its landmark stance on adolescent sexuality, criminal justice, and the limitations of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in dealing with consensual relationships involving minors.

What about the POCSO Act?

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is a comprehensive law enacted by the Government of India to protect children (below 18 years) from sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and pornography. It ensures a child-friendly legal process and provides for special courts to conduct speedy trials.

Why is reforming the age of consent under POCSO being debated?

Criminalisation of Consensual Adolescent Relationships: The current age of consent (18 years) under the POCSO Act criminalises all sexual activity involving minors, even when it is consensual and non-exploitative. Eg: In the 2025 Supreme Court case from West Bengal, a 14-year-old girl in a consensual relationship faced legal action, despite her opposition to the punishment of her partner.
Disconnect Between Law and Ground Realities: There is a gap between the legal framework and social realities, as many POCSO cases involve romantic relationships rather than abuse. Eg: An Enfold study (2016–2020) found that 24.3% of POCSO cases in Assam, Maharashtra, and West Bengal involved consensual romantic relationships, with 82% of victims refusing to testify against the accused.
Need to Recognise Adolescent Agency with Safeguards: Critics argue that adolescents aged 16–18 are capable of giving informed consent under certain conditions, and blanket criminalisation undermines their agency. Eg: The UNCRC’s General Comment No. 20 recommends non-criminalisation of consensual acts between adolescents of similar age and calls for laws that address coercion, not curtail autonomy.

How does the 2025 Supreme Court judgment reflect a rights-based approach?

Upholding the Right to Dignity and Autonomy (Article 21): The Court acknowledged the woman’s emotional and financial struggles, choosing not to impose a sentence on the accused to protect her well-being and dignity. This affirms the constitutional right to life with dignity and shifts focus from punitive justice to restorative justice.
Prioritising the Voice of the Affected Individual: By forming an expert committee to assess the now-adult woman’s preferences before sentencing, the Court ensured her voice and agency were central to the legal outcome, a key tenet of rights-based jurisprudence.
Recognising Systemic Failures and Suggesting Reforms: The Court acknowledged the collective failure of social and legal systems and directed the central government to consider reforms such as comprehensive sexuality education, life-skills training, and rehabilitation support — addressing structural rights violations beyond the courtroom.

Case study:

Canada – Close-in-Age Exemption: Canada sets the age of consent at 16, but allows consensual sexual activity between adolescents through close-in-age exemptions (e.g., a 14-year-old can engage in consensual activity with someone less than 5 years older).

South Africa – Teddy Bear Clinic Case (2013): The Constitutional Court ruled that criminalising consensual sex between adolescents aged 12–15 violates their rights to dignity and privacy.

How can the law better balance adolescent protection with agency? (Way forward)

Introduce a Close-in-Age Exemption: Laws can decriminalise consensual relationships between adolescents close in age (e.g., 16–18), while still penalising exploitation or coercion. Eg: Several countries (like Canada) apply a “close-in-age” defence to avoid criminalising consensual teenage relationships.
Differentiate Between Exploitative and Non-Exploitative Acts: Legal provisions should recognise that not all sexual activity involving adolescents is exploitative. The law must distinguish abuse of power from mutual adolescent relationships. Eg: General Comment No. 20 under UNCRC urges states not to criminalise non-exploitative, consensual adolescent activity.
Incorporate Adolescent Perspectives in Legal Processes
Courts should ensure that adolescents’ voices and choices are considered, especially in determining intent, coercion, and consent. Legal procedures should be sensitive to their evolving capacities. Eg: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025), the Supreme Court consulted the adolescent before deciding sentencing.

Mains PYQ:

[UPSC 2024] Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of a child in the womb to establish its paternity.

Linkage: The article talks about the right to privacy of young individuals, particularly in the context of their relationships and the subsequent legal interventions that deeply impact their lives. The Supreme Court’s revisiting of its stance and prioritizing the voice of the young person under Article 142 demonstrates the judiciary’s role in interpreting fundamental rights like privacy in complex social scenarios involving adolescents.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now