Context

In 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark sentencing judgment in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, marking a rare and nuanced intervention in Indian legal discourse. This case highlights the tension between the rigid framework of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the complex realities of adolescent sexuality, consent, and autonomy.

The case involved a 14-year-old girl and her 25-year-old partner from rural West Bengal. Using Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court not only sought justice for this individual case but also aimed to spark a larger conversation on systemic legal failures, adolescent rights, and the urgent need for reform.

The Case at Hand and Supreme Court’s Response

Case Details

• The case began when the girl’s mother initiated criminal proceedings under POCSO.
• The girl was institutionalized, rescued, and returned to her family, only to flee again due to social stigma and constant surveillance.
• The couple married and had a child before the girl turned 18. Subsequently, the man was arrested and convicted under POCSO, receiving a 20-year sentence.
• In 2022, the Calcutta High Court overturned the conviction, citing socio-economic context and absence of exploitative intent.
• However, the High Court’s judgment contained problematic language framing adolescent female sexuality as something to be controlled, reflecting deep societal biases.

Supreme Court’s Evolving Position

• Responding to widespread public criticism of the High Court’s language, the Supreme Court took suo-motu cognizance, underscoring the case’s gravity and public interest.
• The Court reinstated the man’s conviction but refrained from sentencing him.
• It appointed an expert committee to evaluate the woman’s wishes and well-being, who by then was an adult.
• The Court concluded that sentencing the man would unjustly harm the woman, the very person POCSO intends to protect.
• The committee’s findings revealed that her trauma stemmed less from the relationship and more from institutional processes — police investigations, judicial proceedings, and prolonged efforts to reunite the couple.

Broader Implications

Questioning the Blanket Criminalisation under POCSO

• The case reignited a critical debate about whether POCSO, as currently structured, adequately addresses adolescent agency and sexual relationships.
• Studies indicate that over 24% of POCSO cases in states like Assam, Maharashtra, and West Bengal involve consensual relationships, where many victims refuse to testify against their partners.
• The law thus often criminalizes normal adolescent behavior, defeating its own protective purpose.
• The age of consent was raised from 16 to 18 in 2012, intending to shield minors from exploitation, but inadvertently rendering all sexual activity under 18 illegal — irrespective of consent or relationship context.

Agency, Consent, and Structural Challenges

• The case exposes the conflict between the legal definition of consent and adolescents’ lived experiences of agency.
• The law fails to recognize that adolescents may express limited agency through relationships, particularly in patriarchal and resource-poor settings.
• The Supreme Court’s rejection of the notion that girls are voiceless under the law highlights a paternalistic view that denies young people the capacity to assert their interests.
• While consent may be imperfect—shaped by poverty, limited choices, and societal norms such as child marriage—criminalizing such relationships does not address these root issues.
• Instead, it exacerbates marginalization and trauma, especially for vulnerable adolescent girls.

Conclusion

The Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents case is a watershed moment, not because it resolved all issues, but because it illuminated the disconnect between rigid legal frameworks and complex human realities. It serves as a critical reminder that laws intended to protect can cause harm if they overlook the nuances of adolescent development and relationships.

As India navigates the intricate issues of consent, protection, and justice, this judgment may catalyze progress toward a more compassionate, evidence-based, and rights-oriented legal system for young people.