The Limits Of POCSO

Context: A recent judgment highlights the need to reconsider POCSO’s absolutist approach to adolescent sexuality needs.

Arguments for amending POCSO

• Ignores the natural sexual tendencies of adolescents: Any sex with the minor is considered as rape since the consent of a person under the age of 18 is irrelevant.
  • Thus, POCSO can become a tool for the persecution of young people in consenting sexual relations.
  • The court reasoned that adolescence and young adulthood form a continuum because of the physical, biological, neurological, and social changes that occur during this time.
  • Susceptibility to abuse: While adolescents can and do choose to have sex, it is a fact that they are still children, and their nascent sexual autonomy is susceptible to abuse.
• Limited Intent of the law: it was enacted pursuant to -
  • Article 15 of the Constitution, which allows state to make special provisions for women and children.
  • The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: To protect children from sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.
• Issues with absolute age bar: (Absolutist approach)
  • The Parliamentary Committee (Rajya Sabha) in 2011 had criticised the clause providing for the possibility of consent in cases of sexual intercourse with minors between the ages of 16 and 18.
  • Puts Law over Justice: Absolute age bar has forced courts to choose between applying the law and doing justice, especially in cases where the minor victim has willingly eloped.
  • Continuing institutional insensitivity: The absolute age line of POCSO has not prevented insensitive assessment of minors’ consent.

Conclusion

• Reconsider the absolutist approach of POCSO: When it comes to sexual interactions of adolescents with other young people.
• Courts to strike a balance: Between limited but developing capacity of adolescents to consent to sexual interaction and their vulnerability to being groomed, abused, and exploited.
• Responsibility of legislature: to provide clarity on core wrongs that POCSO is meant to address, so those valid conclusions may be drawn about what is actually the intent of the law.