Supreme Court Acquits POCSO Convict, Says ‘Law Must Yield to Justice’

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, stating that the case involved “love, not lust.” The bench observed that while laws protect minors from exploitation, justice must also recognize genuine relationships that don’t stem from criminal intent.

Case Background
The case revolved around a man convicted under the POCSO Act for a relationship with a minor girl who was close to the age of consent. Both individuals had admitted that their relationship was consensual and based on mutual affection. The lower courts had earlier found the man guilty under the strict provisions of POCSO, which does not recognize consent by minors.

Supreme Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court bench noted that while the law is designed to safeguard children, it should not be used to criminalize consensual relationships between adolescents. The court emphasized that every case should be assessed on its specific facts, particularly when it involves emotions, attachment, and intent rather than coercion or abuse. The judges remarked that “law must yield to the cause of justice,” highlighting that rigid legal interpretation should not override fairness.

Balancing Law and Justice
The judgment has sparked discussions about how India’s legal system handles cases involving adolescent relationships. Experts note that while POCSO remains crucial to protect minors, its application must distinguish between exploitation and genuine emotional bonds. The verdict points toward the need for nuanced legal interpretation in such sensitive cases.

Broader Implications
This ruling could influence how future cases are approached, especially in Tier 2 cities where early relationships often draw both social and legal scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s stand signals a shift toward more empathetic judicial reasoning, focusing on intent, maturity, and context rather than just the letter of the law.

Conclusion:
By setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that justice cannot be mechanical. Laws must serve humanity, not constrain it. The decision underscores the importance of interpreting legal provisions with compassion and understanding, ensuring that love is not mistaken for crime.