Full Breakdown
Allahabad High Court Calls for POCSO Act Revisions for Minor Couples
By Drooid · · How we work
Court’s Directive on POCSO Application
On October 5 2026, a two-judge bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev ordered the Law Commission of India to examine amendments to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The directive came while hearing a habeas-corpus petition filed by Rakesh Yadav, who sought the return of his wife—identified as a minor-aged survivor of a POCSO case. The bench allowed the petition, permitting the woman to live with her husband after an ossification test placed her “approximately” at 18 years of age.
The court warned that a rigid application of the POCSO Act in “exceptional circumstances” could “advance injustice rather than justice,” especially where a relationship has produced a child. It urged the Law Commission to consider granting special judges greater sentencing discretion and to explore alternative penalties such as community service so that families formed under ignorance of the law are not needlessly disrupted.
Background & Context
The POCSO Act, enacted in 2012, imposes strict liability and mandatory sentencing for offences against children under 18. In the present matter, the couple had eloped and signed an affidavit on September 1 2025 declaring themselves husband and wife. The girl’s father asserted a birth date of July 25 2010, making her 15 years old at the time of the alleged offence.
The court noted that the legislation appears to have been drafted without adequate regard for India’s “social realities,” where large segments of the population are illiterate or semi-literate and may lack awareness of legal rights and duties.
Data & Statistics
- September 1 2025 – Affidavit signed by the couple.
- July 25 2010 – Date of birth claimed by the state and the girl’s father.
- October 5 2026 – High Court order directing the Law Commission to consider amendments.
- Education – The girl studied only up to Class V; she could sign her name in Hindi but could not read a Hindi newspaper.
- Family income – The father, a labourer, earns roughly INR10,000–INR12,000 per month.
Official Statements & Responses
The court’s order tasked the Law Commission with:
1. Examining the possibility of granting special judges discretion in exceptional cases.
2. Considering alternative punishments, including community service, to avoid unnecessary family disruption.
On-the-Ground Report
During oral testimony, the girl’s father—who has never attended school—stated that his daughter could only write her signature and was unable to read a newspaper in her mother tongue. The court described this as indicative of broader systemic failures: low literacy, inadequate schooling, and poverty that can lead to conduct falling within the ambit of the POCSO Act despite limited legal awareness.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The case record lacked any birth certificate or school document. Age verification therefore relied on an ossification test, which the court described as estimating the girl’s age at “approximately 18 years.” The absence of documentary proof creates uncertainty about the precise age at the time of the alleged offence.
What’s Next
The Law Commission is now tasked with drafting recommendations on how the POCSO Act can accommodate “exceptional cases” involving minor couples. Potential outcomes include statutory amendments granting sentencing discretion to special judges and the incorporation of community-service options as alternative penalties. No specific timeline for the commission’s report has been disclosed.