Context

• The Supreme Court of India’s 2025 sentencing judgment in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents represents a rare and nuanced moment in Indian jurisprudence, where the judiciary confronts the limitations of a well-intentioned but rigid legal framework.
• This case, involving a 14-year-old girl and her 25-year-old partner from rural West Bengal, underscores the tension between the letter of the law under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the complex social realities of adolescent sexuality, consent, and agency.
• Through its extraordinary use of Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court sought not only to deliver justice in a singular case but also to initiate a broader conversation about systemic failures, adolescent rights, and the need for legal reform.

The Case at Hand and Supreme Court’s Evolving Stance

• The Case at Hand
  • The criminal case was initially set into motion by the girl’s mother, and it followed a familiar trajectory: the young girl was institutionalised, rescued, and restored to her family, only to flee again due to surveillance and stigma.
  • The couple married and had a child before the girl turned 18, after which the man was arrested and convicted under POCSO’s stringent provisions, receiving a 20-year sentence.
  • Calcutta High Court reversed the conviction in 2022, citing the socio-economic context and the absence of exploitative intent.
  • However, judgement’s problematic language, particularly in framing adolescent female sexuality as something to be controlled, revealed deeply entrenched societal biases.
• The Supreme Court’s Evolving Stance
  • Following public outcry over the High Court's language, the Supreme Court intervened Suo-Motu, reflecting both the seriousness of the case and the national attention it garnered.
  • While the Court restored the man's conviction, it ultimately refrained from imposing a sentence.
  • In an unprecedented move, it constituted an expert committee to assess the desires and well-being of the woman, now an adult.
  • The Court concluded that true justice lay in not sentencing the man, as the burden of punishment would fall most heavily on the young woman, the very person the law sought to protect.
  • Her trauma, as documented by the expert panel, stemmed not from the relationship, but from the cascade of institutional actions taken in its aftermath: the police investigation, court proceedings, and years-long effort to reunite with her partner.

Broader Implications of the Case

• Questioning the Blanket Criminalisation under POCSO
  • This case has amplified a crucial but long-suppressed debate: Does the POCSO Act, in its current form, do justice to the complexities of adolescent agency and sexuality?
  • Empirical studies reveal that a significant percentage of POCSO cases, over 24% in Assam, Maharashtra, and West Bengal, involve consensual romantic relationships, with the majority of victims refusing to testify against the accused.
  • In such cases, the law inadvertently criminalises normative adolescent behaviour, undermining the very objective of protection.
  • The age of consent, which was raised from 16 to 18 in 2012, plays a pivotal role in this dynamic.
  • While intended to protect minors from exploitation, it creates a legal vacuum where all sexual acts involving individuals below 18 are deemed exploitative, regardless of the nature of the relationship or consent.
• Agency, Consent, and Structural Injustice
  • A critical theme that emerges from this case is the tension between legal definitions of consent and lived experiences of agency.
  • The law, as currently framed, is unable to recognise the possibility that adolescents might engage in sexual relationships as a form of limited agency, especially in patriarchal, resource-constrained environments.
  • The Supreme Court’s rejection of the Calcutta High Court’s claim that the law renders girls voiceless reveals a paternalistic blind spot, where young people are denied the capacity to articulate and assert their own interests.
  • That said, it is equally important to acknowledge the contextual limitations of consent in such cases.
  • The girl’s consent may have been flawed, shaped by poverty, limited opportunities, and entrenched social norms like child marriage.
  • However, criminalising such relationships fails to address these underlying conditions.
  • Instead, it leads to further marginalisation and trauma, especially for adolescent girls who are already navigating precarious personal and social circumstances.

Conclusion

• The Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents case stands as a landmark, not because it offered a perfect solution, but because it exposed the fault lines between law and lived experience.
• It reminds us that laws meant to protect can also harm when they fail to engage with the complexity of human relationships and adolescent development.
• As India grapples with questions of consent, protection, and justice, this judgment may well be remembered as the spark that pushed the nation toward a more compassionate, evidence-based, and rights-respecting legal system for its youth.