When Love is a Crime: 4 Surprising Truths from a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling in State of UP v. Anurudh.

 

1.0 Introduction: The Tangled Web of Teenage Love and the Law

In India, the line between teenage romance and the strict letter of the law can be perilously thin. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, a critical piece of legislation designed to shield children from predators, often finds itself at the center of complex cases involving adolescent relationships. This legislative reality was brought into sharp focus by the recent Supreme Court case, State of UP v. Anurudh.

The case began simply enough: in November 2022, a mother filed an FIR in Uttar Pradesh, claiming her 12-year-old daughter had been kidnapped. The allegations immediately invoked the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and IPC Sections 363 and 366, branding the accused a kidnapper and sexual predator. However, when the case reached the Allahabad High Court for a bail hearing, the situation grew complicated. The High Court, attempting to resolve a factual ambiguity, not only granted bail but issued sweeping, general directions for how all future POCSO cases should be investigated across the state. It was this move—a High Court setting statewide policy during a simple bail hearing—that the UP government challenged.

The Supreme Court’s intervention was fundamentally about this jurisdictional overreach, ruling that the High Court had acted coram non judice (without jurisdiction). In correcting this procedural error, however, the nation’s highest court seized the opportunity to deliver a landmark judgment. It clarified profound legal principles and issued a powerful commentary on our justice system, revealing several surprising truths about how our laws function and the deep-seated societal problems they confront.

2.0 Takeaway 1: You're Wrong About How a Person's Age is Legally Proven

The central dispute in the Anurudh case was the girl’s age. While her school records showed her to be a minor, she gave a statement to the police and a magistrate that she was older and, critically, that she had gone with the boy of her own free will. Faced with this contradiction, the Allahabad High Court ordered a medical test to settle the matter.

The Supreme Court, however, delivered a stunning clarification, correcting a common but critical legal misconception. It affirmed that the method for determining a minor's age is not a matter of judicial discretion but is governed by a strict, non-negotiable hierarchy laid out in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

That legal hierarchy is as follows:

1. The School Certificate: The birth certificate issued by the school or a matriculation certificate holds the highest evidentiary value. It is considered definitive and must be accepted unless it is proven to be fraudulent during a full trial.
2. The Official Birth Certificate: Only if a school record is completely unavailable can the court consider a birth certificate issued by a municipal corporation or a panchayat.
3. The Medical Test: An ossification test or any other medical examination is the absolute last resort. It is to be used only when the first two categories of documents do not exist.

The Supreme Court declared that because a school certificate was available, the High Court’s decision to order and rely on a medical report was "legally irrelevant." The High Court had, in effect, ignored the primary evidence and jumped straight to the last resort. This ruling establishes a vital procedural safeguard, ensuring that the most reliable documents are given their rightful and unassailable legal precedence.

3.0 Takeaway 2: The Law Protecting Children Has Become a Weapon Against Them

In a section of its judgment titled a "Necessitated Postscript," the Supreme Court went beyond the technicalities of the case to address a "grim societal chasm." The judges acknowledged a dark and unintended consequence of the POCSO Act: its frequent misuse by families to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between adolescents.

The court observed that when families disapprove of a relationship—often due to inter-caste or inter-faith dynamics—they weaponize the law. In a scenario now common across the country, a 17-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl elope. The girl’s family files a complaint of kidnapping and sexual assault. Under the rigid framework of the law, where a minor's consent is legally invalid, the teenage boy is immediately branded a "sexual predator" and faces years in prison. An adolescent romance is legally reframed as a violent crime.

The court used remarkably strong language to describe this phenomenon, calling it a perversion of the law's intent.

This is an "inversion of justice," where a law designed to protect children is being used to ruin the lives of adolescents.

This official acknowledgment from the nation's highest court validates what many activists and legal experts have argued for years: a well-intentioned law is being leveraged to enforce social prejudices, with devastating consequences for young people.

4.0 Takeaway 3: The Supreme Court Has Called for a "Romeo and Juliet" Clause

In response to this "inversion of justice," the Supreme Court explicitly called on the central government to consider introducing a "Romeo and Juliet" clause into the law. While the idea is not entirely new—the Madras High Court had discussed it in detail in cases like Sabari v. The Inspector of Police (2019) and Vijayalakshmi v. State (2021)—this direct appeal from the Supreme Court lends it unprecedented weight and urgency.

A "Romeo and Juliet" clause is a statutory exception in sexual offense laws. It decriminalizes or reduces legal penalties for consensual sexual activity between adolescents who are close in age, recognizing that such relationships are fundamentally different from predatory abuse. For such a clause to apply, a case would typically need to meet three key criteria:

• Age Proximity: A small age gap between the partners, generally understood to be between two and four years.
• Minimum Age Floor: The younger partner must be above a certain age (e.g., 14 or 15) to ensure the clause does not provide a loophole for exploiting very young children.
• Absence of Exploitation: The relationship must be proven to be consensual and free of any coercion, abuse of a position of power, or other forms of exploitation.

This is a global legal challenge, and other nations offer potential models. The UK empowers professionals like doctors to use discretion in reporting consensual adolescent relationships, Canada employs a "tiered system" allowing for consent with partners up to five years older for 14-15-year-olds, and France has a similar close-in-age exception.

Crucially, the Supreme Court's proposal marks a significant analytical shift from previous discussions in India. The Law Commission, in its recent report, suggested granting judges discretion in sentencing for cases involving 16-to-18-year-olds. This would allow for lesser punishment. The Supreme Court's idea is more fundamental: creating a statutory defense or exception that, if the conditions are met, could mean the act is not considered a crime at all. This is a profound move from advocating for leniency to questioning the very criminality of the act itself.

5.0 Takeaway 4: This Isn't Just About Romance; It's About Fixing the Justice System

The call for a "Romeo and Juliet" clause is not merely an idealistic appeal to protect young lovers; it is a pragmatic proposal to fix a justice system buckling under its own weight. Estimates suggest that a staggering 40% to 60% of all cases filed under the POCSO Act are actually "romantic cases" involving teenagers who have eloped against their families' wishes.

This statistic has profound consequences. It means our courts, police, and prosecutors are dedicating a vast amount of their limited time and resources to policing social norms rather than prosecuting dangerous child predators. These are cases that, as the court noted, require understanding and guidance, not incarceration.

Introducing a "Romeo and Juliet" clause would have several systemic benefits:

• It would significantly reduce the caseload on already overburdened courts, freeing them to focus on genuine cases of child abuse.
• It would strip families of a legal weapon used to enforce social prejudices related to caste and religion.
• It would make justice more discerning. Our current law treats a 40-year-old predator and a 17-year-old in a romantic relationship identically. A new clause would allow the system to finally distinguish between the two, making justice less blind and more perceptive.

6.0 Conclusion: A System at a Crossroads

The judgment in State of UP v. Anurudh operates on two distinct levels. On one hand, it is a crucial procedural correction, clarifying for all lower courts the correct and unalterable legal standard for determining a minor's age. On the other, it is a profound call for social and legal reform, urging lawmakers to confront the real-world consequences of a rigid law clashing with the complexities of adolescent life.

Print Page