Courts have held varying views while judging cases of consensual adolescent relationships. POCSO Act criminalising ‘normal behaviour’ in many cases, say stakeholders.
The Law Commission of India, back in 2023, had also suggested the introduction of “judicial discretion” while awarding sentence in cases of consensual romantic relationships involving adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 years.
Several high courts have in the past asserted that the POCSO Act has not been enacted for consensual adolescent relationships and been proactive in quashing such cases.
For instance, back in 2021, the Madras High Court observed that the Act was never intended to cover cases where adolescents or teenagers are involved in romantic relationships, and suggested that the law be amended to exclude such cases. In 2023, it even directed the police to examine all pending cases involving minors, and asked them to check how many fell under the category of consensual relationship.
While under the POCSO Act a person below 18 years of age is termed a child, Raha asserts that developmentally, “adolescent” is a distinct category.
“Adolescence is a very distinct phase of life, and there is the entire argument that you are looking at something that is developmentally normal, and you are trying to criminalise that behaviour, thinking that it will be a deterrent when, in fact, sexual exploration is normal at that age,” she told ThePrint.
ADR ने Supreme Court में चुनाव आयोग को किया Expose! https://youtu.be/nmfL1yy9_Ig?t=61 26-7-2025
https://adrindia.org/content/adr-moves-supreme-court-against-ecis-bihar-voter-roll-revision-warns-of-mass-disenfranchisement Under the SIR guidelines, individuals not listed in the 2003 electoral rolls must submit proof of citizenship. Voters born after December 2004 must also provide personal and parental documentation, including passports and visas of any foreign parent present at the time of birth.
The plea points out that in a state like Bihar—where birth registration levels have historically been low—such requirements are not only impractical but also inaccessible for vast sections of the electorate. ADR estimates that over three crore voters could be affected by the new criteria.
ECI’s argument for excluding Aadhaar in Bihar SIR exercise is ‘patently absurd’: ADR tells SC https://www.thestatesman.com/india/ecis-argument-for-excluding-aadhaar-in-bihar-sir-exercise-is-patently-absurd-adr-tells-sc-1503462752.html In its reply, the poll panel had argued that it excluded Aadhaar and Ration cards from the list of verification documents as they can be acquired through fraudulent means.
Countering the poll panel’s argument, the ADR said that the 11 documents included in the list for the verification of the voter list can also be obtained on the basis of fake and false documentation.
“The fact that Aadhar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI’s rejection of Aadhar (which is most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd,” the ADR stated in its rejoinder, according to legal website Bar and Bench.
‘Be patriots, raise issues of our country’: Bombay HC rejects CPI(M)’s ‘untenable’ plea to hold protests against Gaza ‘genocide’ https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/bombay-hc-rejects-cpim-untenable-plea-protests-against-gaza-genocide-10149882/
The bench then dismissed the “untenable” plea on the ground of locus of the petitioner. Justice Gautam Ankhad, that police rejected the application on the ground that the protest was against the country’s foreign policy, and therefore it will create law and order situation the state government’s counsel said police had received objections to the proposed protest, and taking law and order situation into consideration, the authorities denied permission.
Later in the day, the CPI(M) politburo, said in a statement: “While doing so, the court went to the extent of calling into question the patriotism of the party. Ironically, the bench appears to be unaware of either the provisions of the Constitution, which enshrines the rights of a political party, or the history of our country and our people’s solidarity with the Palestinians… The observations smack of distinct political bias in line with the central government.”
@ShabnamHashmi @jawharsircar
What is happening to our country!! The judges should then question the Mahatma why he fought against racial discrimination in South Africa
Shameful . @cpimspeak must challenge this. We must stand against genocide perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians.