CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROMEO-JULIET CLAUSE IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ANURADH & ANR., (2026)

This case commentary critically examines the judicial and legislative issues surrounding the proposed "Romeo–Juliet" (close-in-age) clause in the context of the Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. (2026). The case arose from a POCSO prosecution involving an adolescent relationship where questions of consent, age proximity, and alleged misuse of the statute were central. The Supreme Court addressed the legality of mandating medical age determination at the bail stage and highlighted broader concerns regarding the application of the POCSO Act to consensual teenage relationships. The objective of this commentary is to analyse the Court's reasoning on bail jurisprudence, age determination, and the need for a narrowly tailored close-in-age exception within Indian criminal law. It further situates the debate within comparative perspectives by briefly referring to approaches adopted in jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, Spain, and the United Kingdom.