Critics argue that a Romeo-Juliet Clause could be exploited by abusers to justify their actions, making it harder to prosecute genuine cases of child sexual abuse. They also fear it could normalize sexual relationships between adults and minors. Proponents counter that strict guidelines, mandatory assessments of power dynamics, and a focus on consent can mitigate these risks. They emphasize that the clause is intended to address the unintended consequences of overly broad laws, not to excuse abuse.

In 2026, the Supreme Court acknowledged the increased misuse of the POCSO Act in consensual adolescent relationships and suggested the Union Government consider a 'Romeo-Juliet' clause. The Delhi and Karnataka High Courts granted bail in POCSO cases, considering the romantic nature of the relationship and the survivor's age. However, the Delhi High Court also refused to quash proceedings in a case involving early marriage, highlighting the need to deter exploitation. These observations underscore the judiciary's nuanced approach, recognizing the need to balance child protection with the realities of adolescent relationships.

Without a clearly defined Romeo-Juliet Clause, the judiciary relies on its discretion, leading to inconsistent judgments. Some judges may consider the consensual nature and age proximity as mitigating factors, while others may strictly apply the POCSO Act. This inconsistency creates uncertainty for adolescents and their families and can result in unequal application of the law. A well-defined clause would provide a legal framework for judges to follow, ensuring greater fairness and predictability.

As a Law Commission member, I would include the following safeguards: answerPoints: * Mandatory Psychological Assessments: Require psychological evaluations of both individuals to assess their maturity levels and the presence of any undue influence. * Independent Investigation: Establish an independent body to investigate the circumstances of the relationship, focusing on power dynamics and potential coercion. * Strict Reporting Requirements: Mandate reporting of all such cases to a designated authority to track trends and identify potential abuse. * Age Gap Threshold: A very narrow and strictly enforced age gap, perhaps not exceeding two years. These safeguards are crucial to ensure that the clause is not exploited by abusers and that genuine cases of child sexual abuse are not overlooked. They provide a framework for careful evaluation and prevent the normalization of exploitative relationships.

Critics argue that a Romeo-Juliet Clause could be exploited by abusers to justify their actions, making it harder to prosecute genuine cases of child sexual abuse. They also fear it could normalize sexual relationships between adults and minors. Proponents counter that strict guidelines, mandatory assessments of power dynamics, and a focus on consent can mitigate these risks. They emphasize that the clause is intended to address the unintended consequences of overly broad laws, not to excuse abuse.

In 2026, the Supreme Court acknowledged the increased misuse of the POCSO Act in consensual adolescent relationships and suggested the Union Government consider a 'Romeo-Juliet' clause. The Delhi and Karnataka High Courts granted bail in POCSO cases, considering the romantic nature of the relationship and the survivor's age. However, the Delhi High Court also refused to quash proceedings in a case involving early marriage, highlighting the need to deter exploitation. These observations underscore the judiciary's nuanced approach, recognizing the need to balance child protection with the realities of adolescent relationships.

Without a clearly defined Romeo-Juliet Clause, the judiciary relies on its discretion, leading to inconsistent judgments. Some judges may consider the consensual nature and age proximity as mitigating factors, while others may strictly apply the POCSO Act. This inconsistency creates uncertainty for adolescents and their families and can result in unequal application of the law. A well-defined clause would provide a legal framework for judges to follow, ensuring greater fairness and predictability.

As a Law Commission member, I would include the following safeguards: answerPoints: * Mandatory Psychological Assessments: Require psychological evaluations of both individuals to assess their maturity levels and the presence of any undue influence. * Independent Investigation: Establish an independent body to investigate the circumstances of the relationship, focusing on power dynamics and potential coercion. * Strict Reporting Requirements: Mandate reporting of all such cases to a designated authority to track trends and identify potential abuse. * Age Gap Threshold: A very narrow and strictly enforced age gap, perhaps not exceeding two years. These safeguards are crucial to ensure that the clause is not exploited by abusers and that genuine cases of child sexual abuse are not overlooked. They provide a framework for careful evaluation and prevent the normalization of exploitative relationships.