Manipulation of the POCSO Act: What the Supreme Court Said
New Delhi: The Supreme Court addressed the criticism over the increasing misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on January 9, when it asked the Union government to introduce a ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause to exempt to genuine adolescent relationships from criminal prosecution by their families and others who use the law to “settle scores”.
Such a clause would legally protect consensual sexual activity among teenagers who are about to turn 18.
“POCSO cases filed at the behest of a girl's family objecting to romantic involvement with a young boy have become commonplace and consequent thereto these young boys languish in jails,” Justice Sanjay Karol observed in the post-script of the judgment.
The apex court also ordered the judgment to be circulated to the Union law secretary to “curb the menace” of POCSO's abuse, which it said has repeatedly been brought to notice.
“When an instrument of such noble and, one may even say, basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion. Courts have in many cases sounded alarm regarding this situation,” Justice Karol wrote.
The bench also comprising Justice N. Kotiswar Singh placed emphasis on the “grim societal chasm” between child survivors of rape and sexual abuse, often “constrained by poverty and stigma”, whom the POCSO covers and those privileged and literate people who use their social and monetary privilege to “manipulate” the law to their advantage.
“Not only are instances rife where the age of the victim is misrepresented to make the incident fall under the stringent provisions of this law but also there are numerous instances where this law is used by families in opposition to relationships between young people,” the court noted.
The judgment was delivered on an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against an Allahabad high court order that granted interim bail to an accused after it found inconsistencies in the victim's age and statements about her relationship with the accused.
The high court had, however, ordered the government to conduct a medical examination, including ossification tests, on the survivor. The Supreme Court didn’t interfere with the bail order but set directions for a medical examination on the basis of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The judgment quoted precedents that dealt with consensual relationships between teenagers and said that a careful consideration of the nature of the relationship, the intentions of both parties and the victim’s statement to affirm the relationship’s consensual nature are very important in such cases.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
