Is 'honour'-driven misuse of criminal law against consensual adolescent relationships a governance failure or a social one? Discuss with suitable measures.

Q. Is 'honour'-driven misuse of criminal law against consensual adolescent relationships a governance failure or a social one? Discuss with suitable measures. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The POCSO Act, 2012 defines a child as anyone below 18 and renders their consent legally immaterial [1]. The Supreme Court, hearing a suo motu matter on adolescents' right to privacy, has questioned whether every teen romance in the 15–18 "age of experimentation" must attract POCSO, noting parents invoke it to protect family "honour" [2]. The misuse is best read as a social malaise operating through a governance gap — both dimensions are causally linked.

The social dimension is primary - Honour and endogamy: complaints are typically filed after elopement or pregnancy, especially in inter-caste or inter-faith unions — a study of 1,715 "romantic" cases found 80.2% were filed by parents or relatives [3]. - Patriarchal control: criminal law becomes an instrument to police girls' sexual autonomy, treating daughters as custodians of family reputation. - Absent sexuality education, families and communities lack any non-punitive vocabulary for adolescent relationships.

Governance converts prejudice into prosecution - Statutory design: a consent-blind, strict-liability law offers no filter to separate exploitation from mutuality; the Law Commission's "guided judicial discretion" in sentencing remains only a recommendation [4]. - Institutional processing: police and prosecutors register and pursue such cases mechanically; 93.8% of romantic cases ended in acquittal, clogging Special Courts and diverting them from genuine abuse [3]. - Judicial variance: inconsistent High Court reasoning has forced repeated apex-court correction [2].

Measures - Introduce guided judicial discretion for the 16–18 bracket, with statutory safeguards against coercion, grooming and age gaps [4]. - Frame police/prosecutorial guidelines and pre-cognisance screening for close-in-age cases. - Mandate age-appropriate sexuality and rights education, plus counselling-first referral through Child Welfare Committees. - Strengthen victim-protection machinery against honour-driven coercion.

POCSO's protective purpose is undiminished; the defect lies in applying an anti-exploitation statute to autonomy. A calibrated reform — retaining deterrence against abuse while restoring proportionality — would align the law with the Article 21 vision of dignity and privacy that the Court is now articulating.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — India Code — definition of "child" below 18; consent immaterial 2. SC questions the misuse of POCSO in teen relationships — The Hindu (14 July 2026) — suo motu case, "age of experimentation", honour-driven complaints, judicial correction 3. POCSO Act, 2012: Consensual Sex as a Matter of Tug of War — study of 1,715 cases (Assam, Maharashtra, West Bengal, 2016–20) — 80.2% complaints by parents/relatives; 93.8% acquittal rate 4. Law Commission of India, Report No. 283: Age of Consent under POCSO (2023) — retention of age of consent with "guided judicial discretion" in sentencing