POCSO Cases Registered Only Against Boys Despite Gender-Neutral Law: Madras High Court Flags Systemic Bias in Consensual Minor Relationships

EduLaw EditorialLandmark Judgements2026-08-19

The Madras High Court flagged a critical systemic gap — in consensual adolescent relationships, only the male child faces criminal prosecution under POCSO, while the female child is treated exclusively as a victim, despite the statute being entirely gender and sex-neutral. Title: POCSO Cases Registered Only Against Boys in Consensual Adolescent Relationships: Madras High Court Exposes Gender Bias in Law Enforcement and Directs Systemic Reforms Case Name: S Venkatesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu Case Number: WP No. 18454 of 2026 Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) Judges: Hon'ble Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Hon'ble Justice V. Lakshminarayanan Judgment Date: May 27, 2026 Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 225 ABSTRACT The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was enacted as a gender-neutral statute designed to shield all children below the age of eighteen from sexual offences, irrespective of their biological sex. However, in practice, the investigative machinery of the State has applied this law with a conspicuous gender imbalance. In S Venkatesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court, through a Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, made far-reaching observations about the selective and discriminatory registration of POCSO cases exclusively against male children in situations involving mutually consensual adolescent relationships. The Court observed that the male child is unfairly criminalised while the girl's family is treated as the aggrieved party — an approach that contradicts the fundamental architecture of the POCSO Act. Beyond gender bias, the Court identified a series of systemic deficiencies in the implementation of child protection laws across Tamil Nadu, including the continued use of the prohibited two-finger test, failure to provide free FIR copies, night-time interrogation of children, denial of bail despite it being the statutory rule, and absence of adequate child-witness deposition infrastructure. The Court directed the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary to constitute a high-level committee to examine these gaps and report back within four months. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Context Factual Background and Procedural History Key Issues Identified by the Court The Court's Observations on Gender-Neutral Application of POCSO Systemic Deficiencies in Implementation of Child Protection Laws Directions Issued by the Court Relevant Statutory Provisions and Case Laws Conclusion and Broader Implications 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT The POCSO Act, enacted in 2012, represents India's most comprehensive legislative framework for protecting children from sexual exploitation. Unlike the Indian Penal Code provisions on sexual offences which were historically gender-specific, Parliament deliberately crafted POCSO as a gender-neutral statute. Section 3 (penetrative sexual assault), Section 5 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), Section 7 (sexual assault), and Section 9 (aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act use the term "person" rather than specifying any gender for either the perpetrator or the victim. This was a conscious legislative choice — the Parliament intended that any child, regardless of sex, could be a victim, and any person, regardless of sex, could be prosecuted as an offender. However, the ground reality of POCSO enforcement in India tells a starkly different story. When two minors engage in a relationship described by both parties as consensual, the criminal justice system overwhelmingly treats the boy as the offender and the girl as the victim. This default assumption — that the male child must be the aggressor — imports gender stereotypes into a statute that was expressly designed to transcend them. The Madras High Court's observations in the present case bring this contradiction into sharp focus and call upon investigating agencies to reconsider their approach in such matters. The significance of this judgment extends beyond the immediate parties. It arrives at a time when Indian courts across the country have been grappling with the tension between the POCSO Act's blanket criminalisation of all sexual activity involving persons below eighteen and the developmental reality that adolescents do form romantic relationships. Multiple High Courts have noted the peculiar injustice of criminalising adolescent boys for relationships that both parties entered voluntarily. The present judgment adds a structural dimension to this discourse by directing remedial action from the State government itself. 2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The observations on POCSO emerged in somewhat unusual procedural circumstances. The original petition — WP No. 18454 of 2026 — was filed as a public interest litigation by one S. Venkatesh, an advocate from Madurai. The primary relief sought was a direction compelling the Tamil Nadu government to file a curative petition before the Supreme Court of India against the acqui