The State of Uttar Pradesh vs Anurudh & Anr, 2026
The Court reaffirmed the supremacy of statutory procedure over judicially created shortcuts, particularly in sensitive matters involving children.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
9 January 2026
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The case arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to a juvenile accused under the POCSO Act.
-
While granting bail, the High Court issued broad directions mandating investigative agencies to conduct medical age-determination tests, such as ossification tests, at the very outset of investigation.
-
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged these sweeping directions before the Supreme Court of India.
-
The relationship involved was alleged to be romantic and consensual, though one party was below the statutory age of consent.
-
The Supreme Court examined both the legality of the High Court’s directions and the broader issue of misuse of the POCSO Act in consensual adolescent relationships.
Issues
-
Whether the High Court was justified in issuing sweeping directions mandating medical age determination tests at the initial stage of investigation?
-
Whether such directions were contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?
-
Whether consensual romantic relationships between adolescents close in age are being unjustly criminalised under the POCSO Act?
-
Whether legislative safeguards such as a “Romeo–Juliet clause” are necessary to prevent misuse of the POCSO Act?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court set aside the sweeping directions issued by the Allahabad High Court regarding compulsory medical age determination tests.
-
The Court held that such directions were inconsistent with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prescribes a clear hierarchy of evidence for age determination.
-
The Court clarified that medical tests like ossification tests can be ordered only when documentary proof of age is unavailable.
-
The Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court’s order granting bail to the juvenile accused.
-
In a post-script, the Court acknowledged repeated instances of misuse of the POCSO Act in consensual adolescent relationships.
-
The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, for consideration of legislative reforms.
Held
-
The mandatory statutory procedure under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act must be strictly followed for age determination.
-
Routine and premature medical testing for age determination is impermissible.
-
Consensual adolescent relationships are increasingly being subjected to harsh criminal prosecution under the POCSO Act.
-
Legislative intervention, including a possible “Romeo–Juliet clause”, deserves serious consideration.
Analysis
-
The Court reaffirmed the supremacy of statutory procedure over judicially created shortcuts, particularly in sensitive matters involving children.
-
By invalidating the High Court’s directions, the judgment reinforced the evidentiary hierarchy laid down under the Juvenile Justice Act.
-
The post-script reflects judicial sensitivity to social realities, acknowledging that the rigid application of POCSO often criminalises youthful romance rather than protecting children from exploitation.
-
The suggestion of a “Romeo–Juliet clause” marks a significant shift towards balancing child protection, proportionality, and fairness.
-
The recommendation to penalise deliberate misuse of POCSO highlights the Court’s concern over the law being weaponised for personal or social vendettas.
-
Though not binding, the post-script carries persuasive value and may influence future legislative reform and judicial interpretation.