In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (May 2025), the Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, chose not to sentence a man convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, highlighting the real-life emotional, economic, and social hardships faced by the adolescent girl involved. The case reopened critical discourse on criminalising consensual adolescent relationships and the need for legal reform.

Judicial Trajectory and Legal Paradoxes

• Article 142 Used for Substantive Justice: The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to not impose the mandatory 20-year sentence on the convict, despite upholding his conviction under the POCSO Act, citing the victim’s well-being and the family’s socio-economic distress.
• High Court’s Relief Marred by Gendered Commentary: While the Calcutta High Court had initially acquitted the accused on humanitarian grounds, it made regressive remarks urging adolescent girls to control sexual urges, reflecting entrenched patriarchal biases.
• Supreme Court’s Rejection of International Norms: The top court dismissed concepts like “non-exploitative sexual acts” and “older adolescents,” though these are recognised in UNCRC General Comment No. 20 and medical discourse, thereby resisting evolving international norms on adolescent consent.

Systemic Failures and Institutional Gaps

• Collective Institutional Breakdown: The Court acknowledged that the victim suffered due to family rejection, inadequate child protection systems, and procedural trauma, illustrating the systemic failure in addressing adolescent sexuality sensitively.
• Legal vs. Lived Reality of Adolescents: Empirical studies (e.g., Enfold-P39A, 2021) reveal that a significant proportion of POCSO cases involve consensual relationships with adolescents aged 16–18, where victims often refuse to depose against accused partners.
• Rehabilitation Promises vs. Ground Reality: While the Court suggested using JJ Act rehabilitative measures through Child Welfare Committees, field evidence indicates that adolescents in such cases frequently face institutionalisation and emotional distress, not support.

Reform Imperatives and the Way Forward

• Re-examining Blanket Criminalisation under POCSO: The rigid age-of-consent bar at 18 does not accommodate consensual relationships among older adolescents. A differentiated approach could help prevent misuse of POCSO against non-exploitative relationships.
• Need for Consent-Based, Rights-Oriented Lens: Consent of adolescents aged 16+ should be legally recognised with safeguards such as ensuring absence of coercion, unequal power dynamics, or authority-based influence (e.g., teachers, employers).
• Court's Reformative Recommendations: The Supreme Court directed the Centre to explore implementing comprehensive sexuality education, psychosocial counselling, emergency services, and life-skills training—essential components for adolescent empowerment and systemic reform.

PracticeQuestion:

"Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025) on the criminalisation of adolescent sexuality under the POCSO Act. In your opinion, how should the law reconcile protection with autonomy for adolescents?"   (250 words)