Supreme Court Flags Misuse of POCSO

Why in the News?

1. The Supreme Court has observed growing misuse of the POCSO Act to criminalise consensual adolescent relationships and is considering directions to spread legal awareness about the law.
2. The Court has asked the Centre and States/UTs to respond on steps taken to include sexual equality and moral education in school syllabi before issuing final directions.

Key Highlights

1.     How the issue reached the Court

1. A writ petition by senior advocate Aabad Ponda argued that poor education on gender equality contributes to sexual violence and misuse of law.
2. The Court took up the petition and, while hearing bail matters, noticed repeated instances where POCSO’s stringent provisions were invoked in consensual adolescent cases.

2.     The Court’s concern: prosecution of consensual adolescent relationships

1. The Bench observed that parents often lodge POCSO complaints against boys in consensual relationships with girls of similar ages.
2. The judges stressed that male adolescents are frequently at the receiving end and therefore legal literacy must be strengthened among boys and men.

3.     Education and curriculum reform as part of the solution

1. The petitioner urged that gender equality and moral education be introduced early in school curricula to change attitudes and reduce criminalisation.
2. The Court earlier directed the Centre to indicate steps taken to include sexual equality in school syllabi and asked States/UTs for status reports.

4.     States and UTs asked to respond — one last opportunity

1. Several States/UTs (including Telangana, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir) had not filed responses; the Court granted them a final chance.
2. Once all responses are received, the Court said it would consider issuing directions to promote awareness of the POCSO framework.

5.     Focus on calibrated legal response and awareness, not repeal

1. The Court’s approach emphasises awareness, sensitisation and education rather than immediate legal dilution.
2. It signals a preference for prevention through knowledge and values-based education, and for procedural safeguards so POCSO is not used vindictively.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

1. Objective:
   1. To protect children below 18 years from sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.
   2. Ensures child-friendly procedures during investigation and trial.
2. Definition of Child:
   1. Any person below 18 years of age (gender-neutral law).
3. Types of Offences Covered:
   1. Penetrative and non-penetrative sexual assault,
   2. Sexual harassment, and
   3. Use of children for pornography.
4. Consent Not a Defence:
   1. Even consensual sexual acts involving minors are treated as offences under the Act.
5. Special Provisions:
   1. Establishes Special Courts for speedy trial.
   2. Mandates child-friendly procedures — e.g., statements in a safe environment, presence of parents/support persons.
   3. Media disclosure of a child’s identity is prohibited.
6. Mandatory Reporting:
   1. Any person aware of a sexual offence must report it; failure attracts punishment.
7. Burden of Proof:
   1. Shifts to the accused once basic facts are established — strengthening victim protection.
8. Amendments (2019):
   1. Introduced death penalty for aggravated penetrative assault.
   2. Criminalised child pornography more strictly.
   3. Enhanced punishments for repeat offenders.
9. Implementation Mechanism:
   1. National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR/SCPCR) monitor implementation.

Implications

1. Reduced wrongful prosecutions: Clear legal awareness and sensitisation can curb wrongful criminal complaints against consensual adolescent relationships, reducing trauma and legal collateral damage.
2. Gender-sensitive education policy: Introducing gender equality and sexual-literacy content in schools could change social norms and reduce gender-based violence over time.
3. Police and prosecutorial practice reform: Law enforcement will need updated guidelines and training to distinguish consensual adolescent conduct from exploitative offences.
4. Juvenile justice interface: Proper awareness reduces unnecessary criminalisation of minors and steers cases to child-friendly procedures (e.g., Juvenile Justice Boards, diversion).
5. Balance between protection and rights: The judgment highlights the need to protect children from abuse while avoiding over-broad application that curtails adolescents’ evolving autonomy.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention recognises a real tension: POCSO’s protective zeal must not be converted into a tool for punishing consensual adolescent behaviour or settling private scores. The Court’s emphasis on legal literacy, gender education, policing guidelines and child-sensitive procedures aims to protect children from abuse while safeguarding adolescents from undue criminalisation. A coordinated response by the Centre, States, schools and civil society is essential.