The Delhi High Court has emphasized the need for a compassionate legal approach towards adolescent romantic relationships. It has stated consensual love among teenagers should not be criminalized under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice Jasmeet Singh underscored that love is a fundamental human experience and adolescents have the right to form emotional connections. He stated that the law should focus on preventing exploitation and abuse rather than punishing consensual relationships.
“The legal system must safeguard the rights of young individuals to love while ensuring their safety and well-being. A compassionate approach that prioritizes understanding over punishment is needed in cases involving adolescent love,” the Court noted.
Age of Consent and Legal Interpretation
While acknowledging the importance of the legal age of consent, the Court highlighted that strict enforcement of POCSO provisions without considering the nuances of individual cases could lead to harsh consequences. It observed that convicting an individual without definitive proof of the prosecutrix’s age would be unjust. Especially when the age difference is marginal.
However, the Court clarified that if substantial documentary evidence, such as school records or affidavits, confirms that the victim is significantly underage, the Act should be applied stringently.
Acquittal in 2020 Case Upheld
Justice Singh upheld a trial court’s decision acquitting a man charged under Section 4 of the POCSO Act in February 2020. The Court noted that the prosecutrix had consistently maintained that the relationship was consensual. During her testimony, she reaffirmed that physical relations occurred with her consent, and there was no conclusive proof that she was a minor at the time of the incident.
Balancing Protection and Individual Rights
The Court acknowledged that the POCSO Act was enacted to safeguard minors from sexual exploitation. However, it pointed out that the Act does not differentiate between cases where a minor willingly engages in a relationship. This involves coercion.
Interpreting the legal age of majority within context, the Court stated that disregarding a minor’s informed consent, especially when they are close to adulthood, might not be justifiable. It stressed the importance of considering individual circumstances while adjudicating such cases.
This ruling signals a broader discussion on the interpretation of laws concerning adolescent relationships. Thus, calling for a balance between legal safeguards and personal autonomy.
