The Allahabad High Court has requested the Law Commission to recommend suitable amendments to the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, dealing with minor couples after examining the social realities prevailing in India.

A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that, in certain circumstances, strictly applying the Act could produce consequences that may "advance injustice rather than justice", particularly where a relationship has resulted in the birth of a child.

The Court suggested that possible suggestions on amendments could include vesting Special Judges with adequate discretion in exceptional cases, such as the present one, to consider the circumstances of the case while determining the appropriate punishment

It also asked the Law Commission to examine alternative forms of punishment, including community service, where a family formed in circumstances arising from ignorance of the POCSO Act risks being unnecessarily disrupted.

The observations were made while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking the production of a girl with whom he had eloped and who subsequently gave birth to his child. The man is an accused in a pending POCSO case.

"Undoubtedly, ignorance of law is no excuse. However, if this principle is applied in a purely pedantic manner, the implementation of the POCSO Act may, in certain factual situations, result in consequences which may appear to advance injustice rather than justice," the bench observed

The Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Law Commission.

In its 9-page order, the bench made another significant observation as it stated that the legislation did not appear to have given sufficient regard to India's social realities while enacting POCSO Act.

"While enacting the legislation, it does not appear that sufficient regard was given to the social realities prevailing in India, where a considerable section of the population remains illiterate or semiliterate and may not even be aware of the rights guaranteed to them under law and the Constitution, much less of the duties, obligations and legal consequences arising therefrom", the Court said.

The Court said that the present case disclosed a conflict between human development and the rigors of law. It added that it was natural for a child of about 15 years to be attracted to another person upon attaining a certain degree of physical and emotional maturity.

However, the Court emphasized that the State must ensure minors remain meaningfully engaged in education until they attain majority and receive adequate opportunities to acquire vocational skills and become self-reliant.

The bench made this observation about the minors' education after expressing concern over the Girl's inability to read the Hindi newspaper in the courtroom. In fact, she also admitted that she could only sign and could not write anything more in Hindi.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed that the quality of the State education system was, "to put it mildly, a matter of serious concern". It questioned why the girl had discontinued her education after Class V and why the State had been unable to ensure that she continued studying.

The High Court said the legislature had remained silent on the issue despite the possibility of injustice arising from the strict application of the POCSO Act. It also observed that the Law Commission had previously been apprised of the gross injustice that could result.

"This issue perhaps has already been raised before the legislature, which is responsible for ensuring that appropriate changes are made in the law. Yet, the legislature appears to have remained consistently silent on the matter", the bench said.

The bench therefore asked the Commission to examine these factors and recommend suitable amendments for the legislature to consider.

The bench said that the Commission should also make suggestions regarding vesting Special Judges with adequate discretion to determine appropriate punishment in exceptional cases after considering their circumstances.

"The possibility of alternative forms of punishment, including community service, may also be examined", the Court said.

It added that this could ensure that "a family formed in circumstances arising from ignorance of the provisions of the POCSO Act is not unnecessarily disrupted in the very name of protecting girls and women below the age of 18 years".

Furthermore, the Court also questioned whether imprisonment of the accused, who was responsible for the child's care, would ultimately leave the responsibility for maintaining the girl and her child to the State.

"The law must remain dynamic and capable of rendering complete justice having regard to the peculiar facts of each case", the bench observed.

Court's order on the merits of the case

According to the petitioners, the couple had eloped and executed an affidavit dated September 1, 2025, declaring themselves husband and wife.

The State and the girl's father maintained that her date of birth was July 25, 2010. After she was recovered, she was sent to a Bal Griha, where she subsequently gave birth to a child.

While dealing with the Habeas corpus pleas concerning the girl, the Court noted that no school-issued date-of-birth certificate or birth certificate from a municipal authority or panchayat was on record.

However, the bench noted an ossification test that assessed her age at approximately 18 years.

Referring to Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the bench held that the girl was a major. Because she expressed a desire to live with the man, the Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and permitted her to leave with him.

Importantly, the bench clarified that the trial court dealing with the pending POCSO case would not consider its factual observations in the habeas corpus proceedings.

Accordingly, it directed the trial court to deal with the matter strictly in accordance with law and solely on the basis of the evidence led and recorded in those proceedings.