The strict-liability framework of the POCSO Act protects children but may criminalise consensual adolescent relationships. Analyse.

The POCSO Act, 2012 defines a child as any person below 18. It treats any sexual act with a child as an offence whether or not the child consented [1]. This rule of strict liability gives children strong protection against abuse. Applied without regard to context, however, it also reaches willing relationships between older adolescents.

Strict liability: the design

• Fixed age line: the child's consent is irrelevant, and the Act makes no exception for any religion [1].
• Uniform application: the Delhi HC (2026) held that a marriage valid under Muslim personal law gives no immunity from POCSO/BNS prosecution. Personal law decides whether a marriage exists, but it cannot create a criminal exception [2].

How it protects children

• Removes the "consent" defence that grooming or family pressure can manufacture. In the Delhi case, the girl was 16 and her husband nearly 28 [2].
• Deterrence: the 2019 amendment raised minimum sentences from 7 to 10 years (penetrative assault) and from 10 to 20 years (aggravated assault), with death as the maximum [3].
• Speedy trial: 404 exclusive POCSO courts among 754 Fast Track Special Courts had disposed of over 3.06 lakh cases by January 2025 [4].
• Curbs child marriage by shutting the "puberty" route to immunity [2].

How it may criminalise consensual relationships

• Peers treated as offenders: the Karnataka HC asked the Law Commission to reconsider the age of consent because of rising cases of 16–18-year-olds eloping [5].
• Rigid minimum sentences: a 10-year minimum [3] ignores context. In the Delhi case, the young mother supported the accused's bail [2]. His conviction may leave her and her child without support.
• Health-seeking deterred: that case came to light at a government hospital [2]. Mandatory reporting may push other pregnant minors towards unsafe home deliveries.
• Judicial overload: consensual cases take up court time meant for violent abuse.

Way forward

Strict liability is the protective core of POCSO. The flaw lies in rigid sentencing, not in the age line. The Law Commission (Report No. 283, 2023) advised keeping 18 as the age of consent but allowing guided judicial discretion in sentencing for 16–18 cases with "tacit approval" [5]. Care-first reporting protocols in hospitals and compulsory marriage registration with age proof would add to this. Together, these steps would respect Articles 15(3) and 21 and SDG 5.3 without diluting protection.