The Supreme Court has struck the right chord by expressing concern over the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act while hearing a writ petition seeking compulsory sex education in schools and sensitising children about anti-rape laws. A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan has issued notices to the Centre and the states, opening a much-needed debate on how to protect children without criminalising youthful indiscretions or weaponising the law. Nobody can deny that POCSO was enacted to meet a pressing need. Crimes against children, especially in schools, homes and institutions, had been rising alarmingly. The law was designed to be a strong deterrent. It simplified procedures, encouraged reporting, and sought to ensure that predators—often persons in positions of trust—did not escape punishment. At its heart, POCSO is a declaration that society will not tolerate the exploitation of children.
However, like all powerful laws, POCSO has also produced unintended consequences. Under its provisions, a girl under 18 cannot give consent under any circumstances. Thus, any sexual relationship involving a girl below that age is deemed an offence. What seemed appropriate as a blanket protection on paper has created real-world problems. Adolescents fall in love, explore sexuality and occasionally elope—acts that, while worrying for parents, are part of the complex landscape of growing up. Yet the law treats such incidents as serious crimes, converting teenage romance into statutory rape and young boys into hardened undertrials. In countless cases, distraught or vindictive families have filed complaints not to protect their daughters but to punish the boy and “save honour.” The result: boys languish in jail, sometimes for years, their futures derailed before they even reach adulthood. There have also been cases where POCSO is misused to settle land disputes, marital battles, and petty rivalries. One infamous instance involved a mother accusing her husband—who was also the child’s father—of assaulting their daughter. The lie fell apart only when the child spoke the truth in the judge’s chamber. Not every victim of misuse, however, gets such a chance.
This is not to trivialise genuine abuse. POCSO has brought countless predators to book and remains indispensable. But a law designed to shield children must not become a tool of oppression. A strong argument exists for revisiting the age of consent and aligning the law with emerging social realities. Many legal experts suggest 16 as a more realistic threshold, with safeguards to distinguish consensual relationships from coercion or exploitation. The court’s intervention is timely. Protecting children must remain paramount, but justice is not served when innocent young people are destroyed in the process. POCSO should remain a shield for the vulnerable, not a sword in the hands of the malicious.
