Supreme Court Urged To Lower Age Of Consent From 18 To 16 Years In India

Hans India

4 days ago

Senior advocate Indira Jaising has petitioned the Supreme Court of India to reconsider the statutory age of consent, advocating for its reduction from 18 to 16 years. In her role as amicus curiae in the Nipun Saxena v. Union of India case, Jaising has submitted written arguments challenging the comprehensive criminalization of sexual activities involving teenagers between 16 and 18 years under both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) 2012 and Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.
The senior lawyer contends that existing legislation inappropriately categorizes consensual romantic relationships among adolescents as abusive behavior, thereby disregarding their personal autonomy, emotional maturity, and decision-making capabilities. According to Jaising's submissions, there exists no substantial justification or scientific evidence supporting the 2013 decision to raise the consent age from 16 to 18 years, particularly since the lower age had been maintained for more than seven decades prior to this amendment.
Jaising emphasizes that the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013 implemented this change without proper parliamentary discussion and contrary to recommendations from the Justice Verma Committee, which had suggested maintaining 16 as the appropriate age of consent. She argues that contemporary adolescents reach physical and emotional maturity earlier than previous generations and possess the capacity to engage in meaningful romantic and sexual relationships based on personal choice.
Supporting her argument with empirical data, including statistics from the National Family Health Survey, Jaising notes that sexual activity among teenagers represents a normal aspect of adolescent development. She highlights alarming statistics showing a 180 percent increase in POCSO prosecutions involving minors aged 16 to 18 between 2017 and 2021, with many cases initiated by parents opposing inter-caste or inter-faith relationships, often against the wishes of the young women involved.
The advocate warns that criminalizing consensual sexual activity among teenagers creates harmful consequences, forcing young couples into secretive behavior, premature marriages, or legal difficulties rather than promoting healthy communication and comprehensive sex education. To address these concerns, she proposes implementing a "close-in-age" exception that would protect consensual sexual encounters between adolescents aged 16 to 18 from prosecution under current laws.
Drawing from international legal precedents and Indian constitutional jurisprudence, Jaising references the United Kingdom's Gillick decision and India's Puttaswamy privacy judgment to argue that legal capacity should not be rigidly determined by age alone. She maintains that decision-making autonomy forms a fundamental component of privacy rights and should extend to adolescents capable of making informed choices about their sexual lives.
The submission also acknowledges evolving judicial attitudes in various high courts, including those in Bombay, Madras, and Meghalaya, where judges have expressed concern about the automatic prosecution of adolescent boys under POCSO provisions. These courts have recognized that not all sexual activities involving minors constitute coercive behavior and have called for legal distinctions between genuine abuse and consensual relationships.
Jaising concludes her argument by urging the Supreme Court to formally declare that consensual sexual activity between adolescents aged 16 to 18 should not be classified as abuse and must be excluded from POCSO and rape law provisions. She also advocates for reviewing mandatory reporting requirements under Section 19 of POCSO, which discourage adolescents from seeking necessary medical care and support.
The senior advocate frames her argument within constitutional principles, asserting that sexual autonomy represents an integral aspect of human dignity and that preventing adolescents from making informed decisions about their bodies violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.