Recently, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court in an unexpected move overruled a 2017 conviction, becoming the first Indian court to find that the utterance of two of the most potent words of the English language: I love you, did not constitute rape. The case relies on the type of interaction that might as well have occurred in Bollywood, albeit with less dancing and more legal evaluation.

In October 2015, a 17-year-old schoolgirl in Nagpur recalled how a neighbourhood man (then 25) waylaid her on a motorcycle, seized her hand and declared, “I love you.” A sensational story? Yes. An offence punishable by prosecution? Well, the Sessions Court did, and he was convicted of sexual harassment (Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), stalking (Section 354D of the IPC), and damage to the Body of a Child (Section 8 of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, POCSO) and has been ordered to serve three years rigorous imprisonment and a 5000 rupee fine.

The HC’s Take: Courtroom Meets Common Sense In July 2025. The single judge of the High Court, Urmila Joshi-Phalke, on a textual (and, dare I say, sentimental) plunge into the law, ruled that the boy and the girl had severed their marriage. Her verdict?

“Words expressed as ‘I love you’ would not by themselves amount to ‘sexual intent’ as contemplated by the legislature”. That is, a romantic confession even against a minor is not necessarily criminal harassment. The Bench pointed out that to engage POCSO or IPC on the assumption of sexual assault, there must be an act or mindset that is associated with sex, and this may be, to illustrate, improper contact, persistent pursuit, or other open gestures with sexual connotations Justice Joshi-Phalke further stated that a single line of I love you, does not say what the speaker is thinking. Devoid of other evidence; no mutterings in darkened alleys, no backwards summoning to the scene when questioned, no petitions to do more than love, the court concluded that there was nothing left to establish sexual intent. Lighting on Legal Necessities and Public Hum means to be important.

• Not all phrases that have the meaning of affection imply carnal intent. The act of holding hands and claiming love to be genuine, without the other signs and symptoms, is not in the legal frame of sexual harassment and sexual assault under POCSO.
• Section 7 of POCSO amends the term sexual assault by specifying that sexual assaults include touching with sexual intent. Taking a hand and blurting affection does not always have to cross that line.
• According to IPC 354D, continuous action would be repeated. One-off contact? Not stalking.

Imagine two distinct scenarios:

• Sweet, But Respectful, Nice, Yet Polite.
  It paints a shy college junior telling a senior he loves him or her. The elderly person requests him to stop kindly. The junior apologises and goes on. No stalking. There is no sexual advancement. It was only an embarrassing admission.
• Creepy and Concerning
  A stranger claims that he loves and does not hear any refusals, puts the individual in an awkward position, authoritatively reveals what he wants to do to him, and sends messages to him. That is harassment or something, worse. 

The HC decision is guiding the statute into the former--that using nothing but spontaneous I, as Justice Joshi-Phalke summed it up:
“There should be something more which must suggest that the real intention behind saying ‘I love you’ was to drag in the angle of sex… It should reflect in the act.”

Final Thoughts: A Balancing Act

The order of the Bombay High Court is a breath of fresh air as well as a warning. It also protects the free expression of these affections, but it is also a reminder to any aggressive behavior that consent and context would also be required. Teens and young adults: It is okay to say I love you- but follow up the answer. And the legal system: continue to perfect those tools that help us, when dealing with youngsters, separate youthful impulse and intended criminality.

References

• Times of India – Reporting on the acquittal and HC’s rationale, 

• Indian Express – Emphasising lack of sexual intent and contextual evidence 

• Hindustan Times & Indian Today – Highlighting legal definitions and mental intent requirement 

• Bar & Bench – Detailed analysis of judgment Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete v State of Maharashtra barandbench.com

• Historical Cases – Context on similar judgments: Ganediwala (2022) en.wikipedia.org and Jasleen Kaur controversy en.wikipedia.org

Love you was defamatory of Decency, would make more sense than running Decency through a legal can-can (pardon the mixed metaphors). We must offset empathy. Fear is what an adolescent in this situation underwent, and no one denies this fact. But in criminal law, the standards must be adjusted. All the rom-com love scenes would be filled with awkward confessions, blush, and jail time. The phrase the High Court wisely gave was that not all misinterpreted romances require a criminal judgment. The comments of Justice Joshi-Phalke serve as a reminder to legislatures and investigative agencies: we already have intent tests, e.g., a security gate at a legal building, e.g., the bouncer at a club- the aim of that is to keep authenticity out and exclude excess. This isn’t the first time India’s judiciary has tackled the blurred boundary between flirtation and felony:

• In 2022, Justice Pushpa Ganediwala of the Bombay High Court exonerated a father who had allegedly touched the hand of a child, and reached the controversial finding that the offence of skin-to-skin had not been committed because he had no sexual intentions, although critics considered the decision to be quite perilously focused.
• A notorious 2015 case of Jasleen Kaur occurred after a Snapchat-inspired claim of harassment occurred in the context of an argument in traffic. The defendant was considered a national pervert and was then acquitted in 2019. The incident raised questions of media trial and false allegations over social media. These cases highlight the legal thin line between false report and the privileged speech or love-and how the court has to weigh the protection of the victims with national protection of individual rights. Not quite. Love ought to be mutual, even affectionate. Had the accused cornered her, refused to release her unless she gave her name, or even stalked her home, then it would be considered harassment or stalking. And in case he made any attempt to grope, pull her hair, or come up with inappropriate comments, sexual intent would become a crystal clear reality.

.    .    .