Judicial Review of POCSO and Consensual Adolescent Relationships: UPSC Current Affairs Story Arc

Overview

This arc tracks the Supreme Court's (SC) evolving stance on the 'age of consent' under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Historically, the law has maintained a strict 18-year threshold, effectively criminalizing all adolescent romantic relationships. However, between July 2025 and January 2026, the SC moved from granting individual relief using its extraordinary powers to questioning the law's very foundation. The court observed that the Act is frequently 'misused' by parents to punish consensual partners of their adolescent children. This culminated in a formal recommendation to the Union government to reform the law, balancing child protection with the emerging recognition of adolescent autonomy and privacy.

How This Story Evolved

Court questions criminalization in specific case (July) → Reviews age of consent in PIL (Aug) → Flags misuse as a menace (Nov) → Formally recommends government reforms (Jan)

1. 2025-07-16: Supreme Court Questions Criminalization of Consensual Adolescent Relationships
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC questions criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships under POCSO.

   Key Facts:

   • Case: Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents
   • Court exercised powers under Article 142
   • Section 6 of the POCSO Act
2. 2025-08-10: Supreme Court Reviews Age of Consent under POCSO Act
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC reviewing POCSO Act's age of consent; Nipun Saxena vs UOI.

   Key Facts:

   • Supreme Court reviewing age of consent under POCSO Act
   • PIL filed by Nipun Saxena vs Union of India
3. 2025-11-05: Supreme Court Flags Misuse of POCSO Act
   More details

   UPSC Angle: Supreme Court flags misuse of POCSO Act.

   Key Facts:

   • POCSO Act: Being misused in consensual adolescent relationships
4. 2026-01-12: Supreme Court Reviews POCSO Misuse
   More details

   UPSC Angle: Supreme Court reviews POCSO misuse, asks for reforms.

   Key Facts:

   • Supreme Court case: State of UP vs Anurudh & Anr.
   • Flagged misuse of POCSO in consensual adolescent relationships
   • Urged government to consider reforms
   • Age of consent in India is 18 years under POCSO, IPC, and BNS 2023
   • Supreme Court flagged POCSO misuse in January 2026.
   • The case was State of UP vs Anurudh & Anr.
   • The Supreme Court acknowledged this “menace” on January 9, 2026.

Genesis

Trigger

On July 16, 2025, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to quash the conviction of a man under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), recognizing the relationship was consensual and adolescent-led.

Why Now

The shift was triggered by a surge in 'parental-complaint' cases where the 'victim' (often a girl aged 16-17) testified that the relationship was consensual, leading to judicial discomfort with mandatory minimum sentencing for non-predatory behavior.

Historical Context

The Age of Consent has evolved from 10 years (1860) to 12 (1891) and finally 18 (POCSO, 2012). Previous Law Commission reports had suggested a 'close-in-age' exception, but these were largely ignored until this judicial push.

Key Turning Points

1. [2025-08-10] SC accepts PIL in Nipun Saxena vs Union of India

   Shifted the focus from individual criminal cases to a broad policy review of the 18-year age limit.

   Before: Courts dealt with adolescent consent on a case-by-case basis. After: The legal validity of the age threshold itself came under formal judicial scrutiny.

2. [2026-01-12] Judgment in State of UP vs Anurudh & Anr.

   The Court moved from 'observing' to 'recommending', formally asking the government to reform the law.

   Before: The judiciary was using 'safety valves' like Art 142. After: The ball is in the Executive/Legislature's court for a permanent statutory fix.

Key Actors and Institutions

Key Institutions

• Supreme Court of India (SC)
• Union Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD)
• Law Commission of India
• National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)

Key Concepts

Article 142

Provides the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it.

Current Fact: Utilized on July 16, 2025, to avoid sentencing a man in a consensual adolescent case despite a conviction under Section 6.

Section 6 of POCSO

Deals with 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault', carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years or life imprisonment.

Current Fact: The SC questioned its application in consensual cases in its July 2025 ruling.

Age of Consent

The legal age at which a person is deemed capable of giving valid consent to sexual activity; currently 18 in India.

Current Fact: Remains 18 under POCSO, IPC, and the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, as confirmed in the Jan 2026 case.

What Happens Next

Current Status

As of January 12, 2026, the SC has officially flagged the misuse of the POCSO Act in 'State of UP vs Anurudh & Anr.' and urged the Union government to consider legislative amendments.

Likely Next

The Union government is expected to refer the matter to the Law Commission or a high-level committee to study 'close-in-age' exceptions (Romeo and Juliet laws) as seen in Western jurisdictions.

Wildcards

Conservative backlash from child rights NGOs who argue that lowering the age or adding exceptions might provide loopholes for actual predators or child marriage.

Why UPSC Cares

Syllabus Topics

• Mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of vulnerable sections
• Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint

Essay Angles

• The tension between Legal Paternalism and Individual Agency
• Protecting Children or Policing Adolescents: The POCSO Dilemma

Prelims Likely: Yes

Mains Likely: Yes

Trend Signal: rising

Exam Intelligence

Previous Year Question Connections

• Under which Article has the SC placed the Right to Privacy? — The 'Right to Privacy of Adolescents' case (July 2025) directly uses Article 21 to argue for adolescent agency.
• Application of Article 142 for complete justice. — The arc begins with a high-profile application of Article 142 to bypass mandatory sentencing in POCSO.

Prelims Angles

• The age of consent is uniform (18) across POCSO, IPC, and BNS 2023.
• Article 142 allows the SC to bypass statutory mandatory minimums to ensure 'complete justice'.
• POCSO Act 2012 defines a 'child' as any person below 18, regardless of gender.

Mains Preparation

Sample Question: The rigid application of the POCSO Act in consensual adolescent relationships highlights a conflict between child protection and the evolving right to privacy. Critically analyze the Supreme Court's recent recommendations for legislative reform in this context.

Answer Structure: Intro: Define POCSO's objective vs the 18-year threshold → Body 1: Discuss the 'menace' of misuse by parents (State of UP vs Anurudh case) → Body 2: Legal hurdles (mandatory sentencing vs Article 142) → Critical Analysis: The need for 'close-in-age' exceptions while maintaining protection against predators → Conclusion: Way forward involving Law Commission recommendations.

Essay Topic: Law is the reflection of society, but can it also be its prison? A study of adolescent agency.

Textbook Connections

Key Takeaway

The Supreme Court is steering India toward a 'nuanced' child protection regime where the law distinguishes between predatory abuse and adolescent romantic agency.

All Events in This Story (4 items)

1. 2025-07-16 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court Questions Criminalization of Consensual Adolescent Relationships
   The Supreme Court revisited a case involving a consensual adolescent relationship under the POCSO Act, sparking debate on justice, agency, and reform in child protection laws. The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to avoid sentencing a man convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC questions criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships under POCSO.

   Key Facts:

   • Case: Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents
   • Court exercised powers under Article 142
   • Section 6 of the POCSO Act
2. 2025-08-10 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court Reviews Age of Consent under POCSO Act
   The Supreme Court is reviewing whether to lower the age of consent under the POCSO Act from 18, in response to a PIL filed by Nipun Saxena vs Union of India, to better balance protection and adolescent rights.
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC reviewing POCSO Act's age of consent; Nipun Saxena vs UOI.

   Key Facts:

   • Supreme Court reviewing age of consent under POCSO Act
   • PIL filed by Nipun Saxena vs Union of India
3. 2025-11-05 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court Flags Misuse of POCSO Act
   The Supreme Court has observed that the POCSO Act is being misused in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships, with many complaints filed by parents against adolescent boys for consensual relationships with girls. The court noted that the law is being misused to criminalize consensual adolescent relationships.
   More details

   UPSC Angle: Supreme Court flags misuse of POCSO Act.

   Key Facts:

   • POCSO Act: Being misused in consensual adolescent relationships
4. 2026-01-12 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court Reviews POCSO Misuse
   The Supreme Court, in State of UP vs Anurudh & Anr. (January 2026), flagged the misuse of POCSO in consensual adolescent relationships and asked the Union government to consider reforms. The age of consent in India is 18 years under POCSO, IPC, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
   More details

   UPSC Angle: Supreme Court reviews POCSO misuse, asks for reforms.

   Key Facts:

   • Supreme Court case: State of UP vs Anurudh & Anr.
   • Flagged misuse of POCSO in consensual adolescent relationships
   • Urged government to consider reforms
   • Age of consent in India is 18 years under POCSO, IPC, and BNS 2023
   • Supreme Court flagged POCSO misuse in January 2026.
   • The case was State of UP vs Anurudh & Anr.
   • The Supreme Court acknowledged this “menace” on January 9, 2026.