Delhi High Court reiterates the importance of a tender and progressive view toward adolescent relationships. Justice Jasmeet Singh, while dealing with a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), stated that consensual romantic relationships should not be treated as criminal acts. The court asserted that love is a fundamental human experience, and adolescents have the right to form emotional attachments without the fear of legal consequences.
The Context of the Case
The case is centered on the incident that occurred in December 2014; a 17-year-old girl went missing after having gone for tuition. Her father lodged an FIR alleging that she was kidnapped by Hitesh, a person also reported missing at the time. Eventually, they were found together and brought back to Delhi. During the investigation, Hitesh was charged under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which concerns penetrative sexual assault against minors.
There were inconsistencies raised during the trial concerning the evidence regarding the girl’s age. In February 2020, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Hitesh because there was not enough evidence to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. However, the State appealed against this acquittal. Justice Jasmeet Singh, who heard the appeal, upheld the trial court’s ruling and dismissed the plea of the State.
Key Observations by the Court
Some important observations made by Justice Jasmeet Singh during his ruling hold prominence:
- On Adolescent Love: The court held that consensual and respectful adolescent love is a natural part of human growth. Justice Singh said, “Societal and legal views on adolescent love should emphasize the rights of young individuals to engage in romantic relationships that are free from exploitation and abuse.”
- Love as a Fundamental Right: In emphasizing the universality of love, Justice Singh said, “Love is a fundamental human experience, and adolescents have the right to form emotional connections.” He went on to add that laws ought to develop in ways that acknowledge and respect such consensual relationships devoid of coercion.
- Focus on Preventing Exploitation: The POCSO Act and similar laws exist for the protection of minors; but, their primary purpose should be to check exploitation and abuse, rather than to punish consensual relationships amongst minors.
- Legal Age of Consent: There must exist a law on the age of consent for the protection of minors; however, it would be very harsh and unjust to convict any under the POCSO Act without any satisfactory proof relating to age or where there exists a minimal age difference between parties.
- Nuanced Approach: The court said that an approach in such cases of adolescent relationships ought to be articulated in a nuance, noting that intimidating such relationships by force may lead to an unjust outcome, with consideration rather than punishment being accorded in such matters.
Proof that the prosecutrix was certainly not a minor at the time of the incident became the grounds for challenge. The prosecution relied on school records and birth certificates that give her date of birth as 20 January 1998, while the mother gave her actual birth date as December 22, 1998. This generated discrepancies in evidence. The court quoted established precedent on age determination but noted no evidence was found to exist beyond reasonable doubt that she was under 18 at that time.
Balancing Legal Safeguards with Personal Freedoms
Justice Singh’s reasoning reflects the developing attitude laws are expected to adopt concerning adolescent relationships. The court noted the POCSO Act and such laws are vital to protect children from exploitation; they also must factor in where minors voluntarily engage in consensual relationships. Failing to distinguish between consensual adolescent love and acts of exploitation could lead to acrimonious consequences.
The ruling further held that the divergence of ages among adolescents close to adulthood should not shift the onus of criminal charges unless they are persuaded by compelling evidence of coercion or abuse.
Implications for Society and Legal Frameworks
This judgment has great implications, both for the society and for the legal framework regarding adolescent relationships:
- Progressive Legal Interpretation: By emphasizing the understanding of adolescent relationships rather than the just punishment of them, this judgment therefore sets a new trend for courts to apply in weighing specific circumstances in cases involving minors.
- Safeguarding Rights: The court emphasized the necessity of protecting adolescents’ rights to love, on the one hand, and the other, the safety of minors.
- Reforming POCSO Provisions: The judgment highlights salient issues raising potential amendments to POCSO provisions concerning the distinction between consensual accounts of adolescent relationships and exploitative or abusive cases.
In this case, the parties presented high-spirited arguments:
- Prosecution’s Argument: Arguing before the court, the Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan argued that the school records evidenced that the prosecutrix was a minor and, therefore, consent was irrelevant under the POCSO Act.
- Defense’s Argument: Maintaining a stand against the prosecution was joint counsel of the defense Vinay Kumar Sharma who contended that it was their case the prosecution failed in bringing home the ineluctable proof of the prosecutrix age while much emphasis was put on the testimony of the prosecutrix who confirmed having willingly entered a relationship with Hitesh.
Conclusion
The ruling by the Delhi High Court is one of the most defining moments for Indian law in its attitude toward adolescent relationships. It marks the beginning of a nudge toward compassion and understanding, away from rigid set-ups, thus balancing the need for reconciliation in handling such cases. The ruling not only safeguards the adolescent from undue criminalization but also reinstates the right of the adolescent to develop emotional attachments as natural processes.
About Author
Syeda Ayesha is a passionate 3rd year BBA LLB student at Sultan-Ul-Uloom College of Law in Hyderabad, with a special interest in criminal law and family law. She has built her academic journey on a solid foundation of legal principles, progressing from basic to advanced levels, and is eager to apply this knowledge in practice. Determined to gain practical experience, she is committed to learning more about the law. Ayesha is excited about the opportunity to work in a dynamic legal environment, which she sees as a valuable avenue for both personal and professional growth.
