More and more POCSO cases are being settled by victim-accused marriages

Crimes against children are on the rise. And marriage is emerging as ‘compromise’.

Illustration: ThePrint

India is home to the largest child and adolescent population in the world, with approximately 43 crore children, which constitutes about 29 per cent of the total population. Unfortunately, cases of sexual assault and molestation against minors have become a common occurrence. According to the National Crimes Records Bureau, a total of 1,49,404 cases relating to crimes against children were registered in 2021, compared to 1,28,531 in 2020—marking a rise of 16.2 per cent in a single year.

The legislative mechanism on child sexual offences is governed by the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). While the Act has been impactful since its inception in 2012, several concerns remain. These include the need for decriminalising consensual teenage sex, backlog of pending cases, delays in filing of charges, and lapses in investigation. However, an emerging concern that is not being commented on enough is the rise of ‘compromise jurisprudence’ by various high courts.

The problem of compromise

One disturbing trend has been the quashing of POCSO cases due to ‘compromise’ between the victims’ families and the accused. Though the Act makes sexual offences against minors non-compoundable—reflecting their gravity and societal impact—courts have sometimes treated these cases as private disputes.

The Supreme Court precedent is clear that serious offences, particularly those affecting public interest, cannot be quashed merely on ‘compromise’. Yet multiple rulings have relied on settlements, often justified by the accused marrying the victim. This practice undermines both the letter and the spirit of POCSO.

Marriage, an escape hatch

Several judgments illustrate how marriage is being used to launder criminal liability. The Supreme Court has quashed prosecutions when the victim and the accused had married later, citing ‘exceptional circumstances’. High courts of Kerala, Allahabad, and Bombay have followed suit, reasoning that if even attempt-to-murder charges can be quashed, POCSO can be as well.

This is troubling for two reasons. First, marriage is not evidence that the offence never occurred. In many cases, ‘settlements’ happen under pressure—familial, social, or financial. They may reflect coercion rather than consent. Second, treating marriage as a curative factor legitimises the idea that a victim can be transferred from survivor to spouse as a form of resolution, normalising impunity for abusers.

The courts themselves acknowledge that such rulings are ‘exceptional’. Yet their frequency shows otherwise. Exceptions are fast becoming precedents.

False equivalence of consent and compromise

A cornerstone of POCSO is that minors cannot legally consent to sexual activity. This principle reflects children’s vulnerability and the power dynamics in such relationships. Yet, courts often invoke ‘adolescent love’ or the victim’s willingness to elope as mitigating factors.

This creates a false equivalence. Many adolescent girls face emotional manipulation, threats, or family rejection. Their so-called ‘consent’ is neither informed nor free. Moreover, compromises are sometimes brokered through intimidation, bribery, or marriage—all of which erode the protective intent of the law.

The Supreme Court, in Anversinh vs State of Gujarat (2021), reaffirmed that minor consent is irrelevant to charges of kidnapping or sexual assault. The Bombay High Court has also cautioned that routinely accepting ‘adolescent love’ would not be a good sign in view of the intended objective of the POCSO Act. Still, judgments that privilege harmony over statutory fidelity continue to emerge.

Missing safeguards

The persistence of compromise jurisprudence is compounded by systemic failures. POCSO rules mandate the appointment of ‘support persons’ to assist child victims through proceedings. Yet studies show that in 96 per cent of cases, no such support is provided. Without institutional safeguards, victims are more vulnerable to pressure and compromise.

Courts sometimes go further, holding survivors accountable instead of protecting them. In one instance, a high court even considered prosecuting a woman for perjury after she retracted allegations in a POCSO case, disregarding the possibility that her retraction resulted from coercion. Such reasoning reflects a structural blind spot: the failure to recognise how power imbalances shape victims’ choices.

These trends demand an urgent course correction. Should post-offence marriage or compromise have any role in POCSO prosecutions? If so, under what strict conditions? The absence of clear guidelines has created inconsistency and uncertainty, allowing space for subjective judicial interpretation.

A possible solution lies in statutory or judicially framed safeguards:

• No quashing without independent verification that the victim’s choice is free of coercion.
• Mandatory involvement of support persons and psychological assessments.
• Oversight by an independent legal aid body before any settlement is accepted.

The POCSO Act was designed to protect children from sexual exploitation, not to provide loopholes for compromise. By treating marriage or ‘consent’ as mitigating factors in the absence of any legislative permit to that end, courts risk legitimising coercion and perpetuating impunity. Exceptions are multiplying, and with each one, the Act’s protective spirit is weakened.

India must reaffirm that child rights are non-negotiable. Compromises may serve family or social convenience, but they do not serve justice. POCSO prosecutions should be guided by the principle that offences against children are offences against society and cannot be privately settled away.

Mohammad Nasir is Assistant Professor of Law at Aligarh Muslim University and author of Syed Mahmood: Colonial India’s Dissenting Judge (Bloomsbury). He tweets @Mohamma55165777.

Azima Naaz and Zoya Ahmad are students of law at Aligarh Muslim University.

Taha Bin Tasneem is an incoming Chevening scholar pursuing LLM at the University of Cambridge. Views are personal.

(Edited by Saptak Datta)