Details emerged from Navhatta police station jurisdiction, where a minor village dispute in December 2025 spiraled into a full-blown legal fiasco. Following a complaint from one child’s mother alleging fights and abuses, police registered cases against five people. Shockingly, the FIR included the 9-year-old as an accused under the heavy-handed SC/ST provisions.

On February 19, the boy appeared before the Juvenile Justice Board. Board members, including Magistrate Amit Kumar Pandey and Tej Bali Singh, expressed disbelief at the child’s age—estimated between 9 and 10 years. The FIR’s incomplete columns, particularly omitting ages, only compounded the absurdity.

Issuing a stern directive, the Board mandated the SHO to withdraw SC/ST charges against the minor and furnish a 24-hour report justifying the action. They decried it as a clear-cut abuse of the Act, vowing to involve higher-ups if explanations fell short.

The station head countered that the complaint involved brawling and insults, but conceded an ongoing probe into the erroneous SC/ST inclusion for the child. This mishap echoes a recent Darbhanga case where 200 villagers faced similar charges, tarnishing Bihar Police’s image.

Legal experts are calling for procedural reforms to prevent such travesties. The SC/ST Act, a crucial shield for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, must not become a tool for hasty policing. As Rohtas authorities scramble to respond, this episode serves as a wake-up call for sensitivity and precision in handling juvenile cases.

The court dismissed petitions from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the National Commission for Women (NCW), which challenged decisions by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that recognized the validity of marriages of Muslim girls after they attain puberty. The bench stated that these commissions lacked locus standi in such cases. The court remarked that it was strange that the NCPCR, whose job is to protect children, had challenged an order that protected two children. The court urged that such couples should be left alone.

The court acknowledged that the POCSO Act is a crucial tool for protecting children from sexual abuse, but stressed the importance of distinguishing between exploitation and criminal behavior, and genuine romantic relationships among adolescents. Justice Nagarathna questioned whether love could be considered a crime, cautioning that prosecuting adolescents in consensual relationships could leave deep and lasting scars on their lives.

The court noted that the POCSO Act is often misused by parents. When daughters elope and enter into relationships or marriages, parents file cases to protect their honor. The court stated that if every such case were treated as a crime, honor killings would increase. The court highlighted the trauma a young man faces when incarcerated or prosecuted for a consensual relationship, especially when the girl is on the verge of adulthood. The bench emphasized the need to consider the realities of society.
The bench also considered the social realities of adolescence, stating that boys and girls study together and spend time together, leading to feelings for each other and the formation of romantic relationships. Where the relationships are genuine, and where they want to marry or live together, they should not be stopped.