An unintended and unjust consequence of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is its widespread persecution of teenage lovers. This law raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 years, while defining persons below 18 years as children. Consequently, when two 16-year-olds are romantically and sexually involved, but the girl’s family doesn’t approve the affair and files a police complaint, her consent has zero legal validity. And the consensual relationship morphs into a case of statutory rape. The Allahabad High Court has indicated how its “conscience” is concerned by such severe POCSO provisions being drawn by teenage lovers simply on the basis of family disapproval. The High Courts of Delhi, Madras and others have made similar observations in recent years and also pointed to amendments to the law that can help reduce its injustices. One suggestion that has gathered broad support is to push back both the cut-off for childhood and the age of consent to 16 years. Given that the NCRB data shows around half of POCSO cases falling in the 16-18 years age group, such an amendment is overdue. Minimizing the prosecution of consensual romances would also leave a logjammed system with more space to pursue actual sexual assault cases. The broader goal here is respecting the rights of adolescents and young adults. Their romantic and sexual autonomy needs greatly increased recognition in India.

As per the above passage, which of the following does not correctly represent the author’s view regarding the widespread persecution of teenage lovers under the POCSO Act?