The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 establishes a strict-liability regime that treats every person below eighteen as a child and renders the minor's consent legally irrelevant to the commission of the offence.[1][2] While this design has undoubtedly strengthened the State's response to predatory sexual abuse, it has also produced a well-documented and recurring pattern of misapplication in cases involving consensual, age-proximate adolescent relationships, prosecutions that are frequently set in motion not by exploitation but by familial or community opposition to the relationship itself. Drawing on Madras High Court jurisprudence in Sabari v. Inspector of Police[3] and Vijayalakshmi v. State[4], together with the Supreme Court's post-script observations in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh (2026),[5] this paper argues that the continued absence of a close-in-age exception converts a child-protective statute into an instrument of private social control. Comparative Romeo-and-Juliet models and the Law Commission of India's 283rd Report (2023)[6] are examined to demonstrate that a carefully calibrated statutory exception, one bounded by age proximity, genuine consent, the absence of any relationship of authority or exploitation, and adequate procedural safeguards, is both constitutionally defensible and doctrinally overdue. The paper concludes that legislative introduction of such an exception is no longer a matter of policy preference but an institutional imperative flowing directly from the Supreme Court's own invitation to the Union Government.