Introduction

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was enacted with a clear and urgent purpose: to protect children from sexual abuse, exploitation, and violence through a strong, child-friendly legal framework. Over the years, however, two deeply troubling trends have emerged. First, the law is increasingly being used in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships, turning a protective statute into an instrument of moral policing and parental control. Second, the justice system’s growing obsession with speedy disposal of POCSO cases has begun to undermine the quality of justice, leading to falling conviction rates and a process that often fails to heal or protect child victims. Recent Supreme Court observations and official data have brought these interlinked problems into sharp focus, raising serious questions about whether the current implementation of POCSO is drifting away from its original purpose.

POCSO and Consensual Adolescent Relationships

At the heart of the problem lies the design of the law itself.

• The POCSO Act treats all sexual activity involving persons below 18 years of age as a criminal offence, making consent legally irrelevant.

• This means that:

  • A 17-year-old girl and her 18-year-old boyfriend in a consensual relationship

  • Or two minors in a romantic relationship
    are treated in law at par with cases of rape and sexual assault.

• In practice, families frequently invoke POCSO to:

  • Punish adolescents, especially young men

  • Break up relationships involving elopement, inter-caste or inter-faith relationships

• What is essentially parental disapproval or social anxiety is thus converted into criminal prosecution, with the full coercive force of the State brought to bear on young people.

The Structural Design Problem

This misuse is not accidental; it flows from the structure of the law itself.

• The law has:

  • A rigid age of consent fixed at 18 years

  • Mandatory minimum sentences

  • No legal distinction between:

    • Consensual adolescent intimacy

    • And coercive, exploitative sexual abuse

• As a result:

  • Judges have little room to distinguish between predatory behaviour and youthful relationships

  • The criminal justice system is forced to treat very different social realities as if they were the same

This one-size-fits-all approach may be legally neat, but it is socially and psychologically damaging.

Judicial and Expert Concerns

• The Supreme Court has acknowledged the growing “menace” of POCSO being used in consensual adolescent cases.

• The Law Commission (2023):

  • Warned against mechanically lowering the age of consent

  • But recommended guided judicial discretion in cases involving adolescents aged 16–18 years

• Yet, a crucial gap remains in India’s social response:

  • There is a lack of confidential counselling services

  • Absence of mediation and family guidance mechanisms

  • No strong system of non-punitive, child-friendly interventions

• Instead, the default response is:

  • Police complaint

  • Arrest

  • Prosecution

• This approach:

  • Deepens family control

  • Isolates adolescents

  • Turns normal processes of growing up into criminal trauma

When Child Protection Becomes Moral Policing

The danger is that:

• A law meant to protect children from sexual exploitation:

  • Is increasingly being used to enforce social conformity

  • Reinforce caste, community, and patriarchal boundaries

• Instead of:

  • Respecting adolescent autonomy

  • Supporting young people through guidance and care

• The system often:

  • Criminalises their choices

  • And hands enormous power to families to control their lives through the threat of prosecution

This fundamentally distorts the spirit of child protection.

Fast-Track Courts and the Illusion of Justice

To deal with pendency, the system has focused heavily on speed.

• In 2025, fast-track special courts reportedly:

  • Disposed of more POCSO cases than were registered, crossing a 100% disposal rate

• On paper, this looks like a success.

• But the reality is more disturbing:

  • Conviction rates have fallen:

    • From around 35% in 2019

    • To about 29% overall

    • And even to around 19% in fast-track courts

• This shows a harsh truth:

  • Faster disposal does not mean better justice.

Why Are Convictions So Weak?

Several systemic problems lie behind these numbers:

• Investigations are often:

  • Hasty

  • Poorly documented

  • Insensitive to the child’s needs

• Forensic reports:

  • Are delayed

  • Or of poor quality

• Policing is frequently:

  • Not child-sensitive

  • More focused on closing files than building strong cases

• During trials:

  • Many children lack support persons

  • Legal aid is inadequate

  • Families are left to navigate a hostile system alone

Impact on Victims

For many survivors, the process itself becomes another form of trauma.

• Trials drag on for years, even in “fast-track” systems.

• Psychosocial support is minimal or absent.

• Compensation, though provided for in law, is often:

  • Delayed for years

  • Mired in bureaucracy

• Many children and families:

  • Exit the system exhausted, disillusioned, and more wounded than when they entered it

In such a scenario, the system may technically “dispose” of cases, but it fails in its deeper duty of healing and protection.

Institutional Gaps

Several important institutional weaknesses continue to undermine POCSO’s promise.

• Para-Legal Volunteers (PLVs):

  • The Supreme Court has directed their deployment at police stations

  • But implementation remains uneven and patchy across States

• Child-centric ecosystem is missing:

  • Speed has overtaken care

  • Numbers have overtaken dignity, rehabilitation, and trust

• Judicial contradictions:

  • In some cases, courts have acquitted accused on the basis of promises of marriage

  • This:

    • Undermines the spirit of POCSO

    • Re-victimises survivors

    • And sends deeply regressive social signals

Way Forward

A serious course correction is needed.

• There is a strong case for:

  • Introducing guided judicial discretion in consensual adolescent cases involving 16–18-year-olds

• The system must:

  • Move away from a purely punitive model

  • Towards a care–counselling–protection framework for adolescents

• Policy focus must shift from:

  • Merely increasing disposal numbers

  • To:

    • Improving investigation quality

    • Strengthening forensic capacity

    • Providing continuous survivor support

• There should be:

  • Universal deployment of PLVs and trained support persons

  • Time-bound and reliable compensation mechanisms

• Above all, the system must:

  • Re-centre POCSO on its original purpose:

    • Protecting children from sexual exploitation and abuse, not policing young love.

Conclusion

POCSO was enacted as a shield for children. Today, in many cases, it is being experienced as a sword—used to enforce social control, punish adolescent relationships, and deliver a form of justice that is fast but often hollow. At the same time, the obsession with speed has weakened the quality of investigation, prosecution, and survivor care. If the law is to retain its moral and constitutional legitimacy, it must be recalibrated with sensitivity, nuance, and humanity. Child protection cannot be reduced to statistics of disposal; it must be measured by whether children emerge from the system safer, stronger, and more respected than when they entered it.