New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday highlighted the importance of distinguishing between criminal acts like rape and genuine romantic relationships between adolescents nearing the age of majority.

A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the observations while hearing a petition that questioned whether the age of consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act should be reduced from 18 to 16 years.

Referring to the current social context, the bench noted, "Now, they develop feelings for each other. Can you say it is criminal to love? We have to keep a distinction between a criminal act like rape, etc., from this."

The bench further remarked, “When there are genuine romantic cases, they like each other and they want to get married... Don't treat such cases the same as criminal cases.” It stressed the need to take societal realities into account: "You have to keep the reality of society in mind."

The justices drew attention to the trauma many such couples face, especially when the male partner ends up in jail due to a POCSO complaint filed by the girl’s parents. "This is the harsh reality in society," the court said, pointing out that the law is sometimes misused in elopement cases.

Senior advocate H S Phoolka, representing the petitioner organisation, called for safeguards to address such situations. The court responded that the police must assess the nature of each case--whether it involves kidnapping, trafficking, or genuine affection.

Phoolka also informed the bench that another Supreme Court bench is considering a similar issue on the age of consent. The matter was adjourned to August 26, after Phoolka sought time to place relevant apex court rulings on record.

Meanwhile, in a separate but related case, the Centre has defended maintaining the age of consent at 18 years. In its written submission, the government said the policy was a "deliberate, well-considered, and coherent" decision to protect minors from sexual exploitation.

It further argued that lowering the age or introducing exceptions based on adolescent relationships would not only be "legally unsound" but also "dangerous."