POCSO and Sexual Intent in India: How ‘I Love You’ Sparked a Landmark Legal Debate on Child Protection

🌑A Moment, A Minor, and a Courtroom Conundrum

In a quiet village in Maharashtra, a 17-year-old girl’s journey home took an unexpected turn, when a young man approached her on his motorcycle, grabbed her hand, and said, “I love you”. 

What seemed like a spontaneous expression sparked a crucial legal question—did this act, coupled with an unwanted touch, amount to “sexual intent” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012?

For years, the case moved through the system. Until finally, it reached the Bombay High Court in Ravindra v. State of Maharashtra. There, the judges faced a difficult question: was a sudden declaration of love, even with an unwanted touch, proof of “sexual intent”? Their answer was no. Saying “I love you”, they ruled, did not meet the threshold of sexual intent required under POCSO.

Intent vs Impact: Where the Law Draws Its Line

POCSO is one of India’s strongest shields for children. Yet its core test—was there sexual intent?—is slippery. 

The court here reasoned: no sexual gestures, no physical advances beyond holding hands, a single incident. Therefore, no intent.

But look closer. The lens shifts from a child’s fear to the accused’s state of mind. The aggrieved’s voice risks being lost in what the Court itself called the accused’s “inner compartment of the mind.”

It isn’t the first time. From the controversial “skin-to-skin” ruling to recent judgments, courts have sometimes narrowed POCSO’s reach—sending a worrying message that children’s distress may not count unless it fits rigid legal criteria.

In 2020, the Bombay High Court ruled that groping a 12-year-old over her clothes was not sexual assault under POCSO—because there was no direct “skin-to-skin” contact. The Supreme Court swiftly overturned it in 2021, reminding us that a child’s dignity cannot be split by fabric: “The most important ingredient is the sexual intent, not skin-to-skin contact.” 

In doing so, it restored the law’s spirit—placing children’s safety above semantic debate. However, these cases highlight a fundamental tension: balancing precise legal definitions with the messy, lived realities of harm. 

The Real-World Dilemma 

India already struggles with a pattern of silence.  

A hospital-based study in Assam found that nearly 29 percent of of the aggrieved children brought in for medico-legal examinations under POCSO refused the test itself—often due to social stigma, fear, or complexities of romantic or familial dynamics.

The same study notes how children and families often withdraw because, “the trauma of repeated questioning feels worse than the incident itself.”

When courts, procedures, and communities make speaking up harder than staying silent, protection on paper becomes peril in practice.

Why This Matters—and What Organisations Can Do

For organisations—especially schools, NGOs, hospitals, and any workplace that engages with children—the responsibility is immediate and non-negotiable.

• Mandatory Awareness & Training: Every employee, from senior leadership to support staff, must be sensitised on POCSO obligations—what counts as sexual intent, how to recognise red flags, and how to respond without delay.
• Child Protection Policies: Organisations need clear child-protection guidelines—spelling out acceptable behaviour, reporting channels, and consequences for violations.
• Safe Reporting Mechanisms: Children and parents must know whom to approach. Mechanisms should be simple, private, and aggrieved-centric, not hidden behind intimidating paperwork.
• Designated Child Protection Officer: POCSO makes it mandatory to report suspected offences. A trained officer ensures this duty is discharged promptly and without bias.
• Culture of Trust: Most critically, organisations must build environments where children feel heard and believed. A policy without trust is protection only on paper.

Because just as the courts debate intent, workplaces too face a choice: will they treat child protection as a compliance checkbox, or as a lived commitment?

The Reckoning We Owe

In Ravindra, three words—“I love you”—were enough for acquittal. But for a child, those same words can feel heavy, confusing, unsafe.
The law saw intent. The child— lived impact.

And this is where the reckoning lies:

• Are our legal tests too narrow for the realities of harm?
• Can we really measure a child’s distress only through intent?
• Or must we also ask—what did the child feel, carry, and endure?

For courts, the challenge is to ensure the law protects without being trapped in semantics.

For organisations, the duty is equally urgent: to move beyond compliance and weave protection into culture. Because harm doesn’t always announce itself with bruises or threats—sometimes it hides in everyday words, in gestures, in single moments that leave lasting scars.

The real measure of protection is this: Can a child—or an employee—come forward without fear, without shame, and be met with care instead of doubt?

That is the promise we owe. That is the system we must build—inside courtrooms, classrooms, and workplaces alike.

Suggested Reading

1. ‘Merely saying ‘I Love You’ does not show sexual intent’; Bombay HC acquits man in POCSO case
2. Saying ‘I love you’ without sexual intent not harassment: Bombay HC acquits man in teen harassment case; overrules lower court verdict | Nagpur News – Times of India
3. Bombay HC: Saying ‘I Love You’ Alone Doesn’t Imply Sexual Intent
4. Sexual assault under POCSO needs skin to skin contact: Bombay HC | India News – The Indian Express