When love becomes a POCSO case

Hanumangarh, Rajasthan: Kamlesh was 20 years old, two years and six months older than the girl he was in a relationship with when the police came for him. They came from the same village in Rajasthan's Hanumangarh district, moved in the same social world, and described what existed between them as mutual. None of that mattered under the law. She was under 18. He was not. Her father filed a complaint. An FIR was registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and sections of the Indian Penal Code. Within days of the complaint, Kamlesh was in jail.

What followed, three months in custody, years of court appearances, a marriage, a bank loan of five to six lakh rupees still being repaid, and a job that disappeared, was the full weight of a law designed to protect children pressing down on a relationship that both parties said was chosen freely. This case is not unusual. It is representative of a growing friction between what POCSO mandates and what courts, lawyers, police, psychologists, and the Supreme Court are beginning to acknowledge: that the law, as written, does not distinguish between exploitation and adolescent love.

Arrest and custody

Kamlesh (name changed) was arrested in March 2020. He was given no reason for the arrest. He was held in a police station lockup for a few hours before being produced before a magistrate, who sent him to judicial custody in Hanumangarh jail. Around 15 days later, during the COVID pandemic, he was transferred to Bikaner jail as part of efforts to reduce overcrowding.

He remained there for about 100 days. For roughly the first three months, he had no access to a lawyer. When one finally came, he was arranged by Kamlesh's maternal uncle. A second lawyer had to be separately hired in Jodhpur when the matter eventually moved to the High Court.

In the barrack where he was kept in Bikaner, there were 45 inmates. Around 15 of them, he said, were young men in cases similar to his, arrested under POCSO, their relationships they said were consensual, but the cases proceeded regardless. It was an adult jail, and they were all undertrials. 

"I was suddenly arrested," Kamlesh told 101Reporters. "I couldn't understand how a relationship that had the consent of both parties became a crime."

The case moves forward

While Kamlesh was in custody, the police filed a chargesheet. When he had first been arrested, the girl had given a statement in his favour before the police. Her family, however, was consistently hostile. They said repeatedly that they would ensure he was punished. By the time the matter reached court, she gave a statement against him, and charges were framed.

After getting bail — roughly 100 days after his arrest — Kamlesh began making repeated court appearances, a routine that would continue for years.

In 2021, when he was 21 and a half years old, the two married. Both wanted to. Their lawyer had also advised that marriage could help the case. They presented the marriage documents before the POCSO court and applied for dismissal. The court refused. The matter then had to go to the Rajasthan High Court.

The financial cost accumulated steadily. Between lawyers' fees and documentation, the family spent five to six lakh rupees. Kamlesh and his mother took a personal bank loan to cover it. They are still repaying it.

The case also cost him his livelihood. At the time of the FIR, he had been working as a security guard at a factory in a nearby village. He lost the job after his arrest. Every subsequent attempt to find work ran into the same wall: companies conducted police verification, found the case on record, and turned him away. He had been in the second year of his BA when the FIR was registered. He had to stop. Until the FIR was quashed, no employment was possible.

"It felt as if the future was at risk," he said. "That life would have to be spent in jail."

The High Court's intervention

On August 2, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.

The court found the case extraordinary. The girl had been only a few months short of 18 at the time of the alleged offence. The relationship was consensual. The couple was now married, and the families were no longer in opposition. The court observed that had the trial continued and charges been proved, the accused would have faced severe punishment for no reason other than the girl's age at the relevant time — an outcome that would have compounded suffering rather than served justice. The court cited a prior decision in Tarun Vaishnav vs. State, where similar circumstances had led to the same conclusion.

For Kamlesh, the case is over. The loan is not.

What the law requires

The legal professionals who handle such cases describe a system with almost no room to move.

Naveen Sethi, President of the Bar Association in Sangaria, says the situation at the trial stage is plain: "In many POCSO cases, it is visible that it is a romantic case, but the law is very clear, consent has no meaning under the age of 18. Therefore, the court has limited options."

Advocate Dinesh Dadhich, a former public prosecutor in Hanumangarh's Additional District and Sessions Court, put it similarly. Even when a case personally appears consensual, if the girl is a minor, the prosecution must proceed. "The POCSO court has its own limitations; it cannot go beyond the prescribed rules, but the High Court and Supreme Court have broad powers and can make decisions at their discretion."

The police have no more room than the courts. Retired Inspector Rajender Bhadu of the Rajasthan Police says that once a family files a complaint, registration is not optional. "POCSO is a strict law; you cannot do anything according to your discretion in it. If the girl's age is less than 18, a case is made." He adds that investigation sometimes reveals consent after the fact, but by then, the process cannot be undone.

The social context

Dr Archana Godara, Assistant Professor of Sociology at NM PG College, Hanumangarh, sees the problem as lying partly outside the courtroom. Adolescent relationships have become a social reality, but families and communities often treat them as violations of authority. When young people choose each other, she says, it is seen not only as breaking social rules but as an affront to parental control. The FIR, in many such cases, is less about protection than about punishment.

She argues that where consent exists and families have eventually come around, there is little purpose served by continuing prosecution. "What is the benefit of continuing the legal process in such cases?"

Dr. Manish Baghla, a psychologist at Tantia University, Sri Ganganagar, describes the mental impact on those caught in such proceedings as lasting and serious. Adolescence is a period of intense emotional formation. When a relationship formed during that period is retrospectively classified as criminal, the effect on both individuals is significant, the boy is labelled a criminal; the girl absorbs the pressure of family and social expectation. Jail, prolonged court proceedings, and social stigma compound each other, and their combined effect on self-confidence and future prospects can be substantial.

What the data shows

Research and official data together suggest that Kamlesh's case is not exceptional in kind, only in outcome.

A study by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy notes that under POCSO, any sexual relationship involving a person under 18 is treated as a crime irrespective of consent, sections 2(1)(d), 3, and 4 make this explicit, and that in certain cases the minimum punishment prescribed is harsher than for rape involving adults. Research across states has found that in Delhi, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh, more than 20 per cent of POCSO cases arise from what are described as romantic circumstances. In Karnataka, analysis of court data puts the figure at around 49 per cent. The consequence is that special courts designed to deal with child sexual exploitation are spending significant resources on cases where no exploitation was alleged.

National Crime Records Bureau data from 2018 to 2022 shows that arrests of adolescents aged 16 to 18 under POCSO have increased steadily over this period. The conviction rate has not followed. It has held at roughly 11 to 12 per cent — 12.22 per cent in 2018, 11.18 per cent in 2022 — and the acquittal rate has consistently remained higher. These figures were presented by the Central Government before the Supreme Court in response to a PIL.

Debate

In January 2026, the Supreme Court suggested that the government consider introducing a "Romeo-Juliet clause" in POCSO, which would treat consensual relationships between adolescents differently from exploitation. The court noted that the law, while necessary, has repeatedly been used in personal disputes or as an instrument of revenge, and that cases involving mutual consent and emotional impulse, rather than abuse, should not face the same consequences.

Lata Singh, Programme Manager of Project Sneh Bandhan at Gandhi Nagar Police Station in Jaipur — which provides support to children in POCSO cases — welcomes the pressure for reform but urges caution. The law's protections for genuine victims must not be weakened in the process of accommodating adolescent relationships.

Vijay Goyal, General Secretary of the Resource Institute for Human Rights Rajasthan, is more direct. "Two children become friends, form a relationship, but only one is punished. Why?" He argues that relationships in the 16-18 age group must be viewed differently, and that filling jails on the basis of consensual relationships "is not justified."

Retired Inspector Bhadu sees the contradiction from both sides. "On one hand, same-sex and lesbian relationships are being recognised. On the other hand, people are being stopped from forming natural relationships. This is a big contradiction." He said the Supreme Court's suggestion deserves serious consideration.

(Amarpal Singh Verma is a freelance journalist and a member of 101Reporters.) 

This story has been produced by 101Reporters, an independent news agency with a network of 3,000+ freelance journalists across the country, in collaboration with Crime & Punishment, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.