logo
Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 yrs, SC told

Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 yrs, SC told

Hindustan Times3 days ago
New Delhi, The Supreme Court has been urged by amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 yrs, SC told
Jaising, who is assisting the top court in "Nipun Saxena v. Union of India" case, has filled her written submissions challenging the blanket criminalisation of sexual activity involving adolescents aged 16 to 18 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 and Section 375 of IPC.
She has argued the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights.
Jaising said the legal framework wrongly equates consensual relationships between adolescents with abuse, ignoring their autonomy, maturity, and capacity to consent.
'There is no rational reason or empirical data to justify the increase in the age of consent from 16 to 18 years,' Jaising submitted, noting that the age had remained at 16 for over 70 years until it was raised by the Criminal Law Act, 2013.
She pointed out the increase came without debate and went against the Justice Verma Committee's recommendation to retain 16 as the age of consent.
The amicus curiae submitted adolescents today attain puberty earlier and are capable of forming romantic and sexual relationships of their choice.
Scientific and social data, including findings from the National Family Health Survey, indicate sexual activity among teenagers is not uncommon, she said.
Jaising cited a 180 per cent rise in prosecutions under POCSO involving minors aged 16–18 between 2017 and 2021.
'Most complaints are filed by parents, often against the girl's will, in cases involving inter-caste or inter-faith relationships,' she said, cautioning criminalising consensual sex 'forces young couples into hiding, marriage or legal trouble, instead of encouraging open dialogue and education".
To address this, she urged the court to read into the law a 'close-in-age' exception, which would exempt consensual sexual acts between adolescents aged 16 to 18 from prosecution under POCSO and IPC.
'Criminalising sex between teenagers is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against the best interests of children,' she said.
The senior lawyer referred to international norms and Indian jurisprudence to argue that legal capacity is not strictly age-bound.
Quoting the UK's Gillick ruling and India's own Puttaswamy privacy judgment, she said 'autonomy in decision-making is central to the right to privacy' and must extend to adolescents capable of informed sexual choices.
The submission also pointed to trends in various high courts, including Bombay, Madras, and Meghalaya, where judges have expressed disapproval over the automatic prosecution of adolescent boys under POCSO.
These courts have stressed not all sexual acts involving minors are coercive, and the law should distinguish between abuse and consensual relationships.
Jaising concluded urging the top court to declare consensual sex between adolescents aged between 16 and 18 was not a form of abuse and must be excluded from the purview of POCSO and rape laws.
She called for a review of the mandatory reporting obligations under Section 19 of POCSO, which deter adolescents from seeking safe medical care.
'Sexual autonomy is part of human dignity,' she said, "and denying adolescents the ability to make informed choices about their own bodies was a violation of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution."
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Protection against misuse: on POCSO Act, adolescent sex
Protection against misuse: on POCSO Act, adolescent sex

The Hindu

time17 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Protection against misuse: on POCSO Act, adolescent sex

The key objective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is the protection of children, but over the past few years, courts around the country and rights activists have called for some exemptions. Noticing a trend that adolescents, above 15 years but under 18, in voluntary relationships and having consensual sex were often being persecuted, the courts sought a review. In that backdrop, senior advocate Indira Jaising's written submission to the Supreme Court that consensual sex between teenagers aged 16-18 years must not be criminalised is a welcome move. She was appointed amicus curiae and her submissions are part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena. Her brief challenged the designation of 18 years as the age of consent. She said the only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18, is not a form of 'abuse'. Ms. Jaising called for this exception to be read into the POCSO Act and Section 63 (sexual offences), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. In a 2023 report, the Law Commission had said that it was against changing the age of consent. It advised 'guided judicial discretion' instead, while sentencing in cases that involve children between 16 and 18 years in a voluntary, consensual relationship. Under the POCSO Act and under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the BNS, whoever commits a penetrative sexual assault on a child — who is anyone below 18 years — can face stringent punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and provisions of the IPC and BNS. A 16-year-old is considered a 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and hence her consent does not matter. But caveats have to be put in place so that the broad intent of the law is adhered to, as the Madras High Court suggested in 2021, in Vijayalakshmi vs State Rep. The High Court said the age difference in consensual relationships should not be more than five years to ensure that a girl of an impressionable age is not taken advantage of by an older person. Educating adolescents about the law on sexual offences and its consequences is a must too. Criminalising normal adolescent behaviour is not the way to protect against non-consensual, exploitative sexual offences.

Srinagar a paradise, I feel at home here, says CJI
Srinagar a paradise, I feel at home here, says CJI

Time of India

time25 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Srinagar a paradise, I feel at home here, says CJI

: "If there is a paradise on earth, it is this, it is this, it is this,' B R Gavai quoted a famous Persian couplet on Sunday, saying he felt at home in Srinagar. The CJI visited the Valley for the first time since the abrogation of and the 2023 Supreme Court verdict upholding it. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Speaking at a National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) North Zone regional conference, he stressed the constitutional promise of justice and urged the legal fraternity to work towards ensuring justice for every citizen. He said the chief justice of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh high court should consider establishing a separate bench for Ladakh UT, acknowledging the long-standing demand raised by Ladakh Bar. A day after SC judge and NALSA executive chairman, Justice Surya Kant, launched Veer Parivar Sahayata, the CJI said, 'It is a great initiative and it will provide legal assistance to families of martyrs who have laid down their lives for the country.'

Gutkha Ban Vs Tasmac Sales: Contradiction in Tamil Nadu's Public Health Policy
Gutkha Ban Vs Tasmac Sales: Contradiction in Tamil Nadu's Public Health Policy

Time of India

time2 hours ago

  • Time of India

Gutkha Ban Vs Tasmac Sales: Contradiction in Tamil Nadu's Public Health Policy

Srimathi Venkatachari In Tamil Nadu, public health policy treads a morally ambiguous line between constitutional commitment and commercial convenience. The state, invoking Article 47 of the Constitution—mandating the govt to improve nutrition and public health and prohibit intoxicating substances — has banned gutka and pan masala citing cancer risks. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now At the same time, it operates and profits from the largest govt-run liquor retail monopoly in India: Tasmac. With more than `44,000 crore in annual revenue, the contradiction is not just glaring —it's institutional. This paradox reveals a deeper policy schizophrenia. On the one hand, the govt frames itself as a paternalistic guardian, shielding citizens from harmful substances. On the other, it plays bartender to the masses, peddling alcohol from every street corner, including those adjacent to schools, temples, and homes. The result is a public health framework that outlaws cancer but subsidizes cirrhosis. The 2013 ban on chewable tobacco was enforced under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, a legislative tool designed to protect citizens from hazardous food items. The move received judicial backing. In Godawat Pan Masala Products Co. vs Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised the States' autonomy under the Food Safety law to restrict or ban harmful substances. Madras High Court, in Rathinam Enterprises vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) went further, approving the selective ban on processed tobacco while permitting the sale of raw tobacco leaves. Contrast this with the legal regime for alcohol. Here, Tamil Nadu enjoys a golden goose thanks to Entry 8 of the state list in the Constitution. It grants states the sole authority to regulate alcohol production, distribution and sale. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now As a result, the same govt that brands gutka a public enemy becomes a benevolent supplier of alcohol. Public health, in this calculus, bends easily to revenue imperatives. Legally, the state walks a careful line, but the cracks are evident. In state of Tamil Nadu vs K Balu (2017) the Supreme Court upheld state-imposed curbs on liquor sales, especially near national highways, affirming the govt's power to regulate in the public interest. Yet, public interest becomes an elastic term when liquor shops mysteriously reappear just meters from their original locations after 'relocation'. Citizens see through this charade. A Tasmac outlet may comply with zoning laws on paper while operating adjacent to residential zones in practice. Alcoholism, domestic violence and road fatalities climb, but liquor counters stay open, often with police protection. The result is what might be termed 'constitutional tokenism': the use of selective bans to appear health-conscious while running a vast, state-sponsored liquor empire. This satisfies constitutional formalities under the doctrine of 'reasonable classification' but fails the test of equity, ethics and lived experience. The social cost of alcohol consumption in Tamil Nadu is immense. Studies link it to rising domestic violence, workplace absenteeism, school dropouts and road accidents. Women's groups routinely protest Tasmac shops that operate in close proximity to homes, citing increased insecurity and disruption of family life. Many of these protests are met with silence or police force. Meanwhile, the fiscal reliance on liquor revenue makes meaningful reform nearly impossible. In some districts, revenue from Tasmac outstrips allocations for education and public health. The irony is cruel: schools go underfunded while liquor outlets enjoy round-the-clock supply chains. What makes this even more concerning is the regressive nature of this taxation. The poorest — daily-wage workers and labourers — spend disproportionately more on alcohol, while the state grows dependent on their addiction to meet budgetary targets. The paradox sharpens further when one looks at class. Elite society indulges alcohol in private clubs and gated communities, often with imported spirits and minimal state scrutiny. For the working class, Tasmac is the only accessible vendor, public, noisy, often unsafe. The state's liquor policy therefore not only sustains addiction, it stratifies it. The poor buy what the state sells; the rich import what the state ignores. There is no easy solution. Prohibition is neither feasible nor desirable, as Gujarat's failed experiment shows. But surely there is a middle path, one that involves decentralising liquor retail, investing in de-addiction centres, raising awareness about substance abuse, and capping the density of outlets in urban and rural areas. Most importantly, the state must confront its moral conflict: it cannot pose as a public health crusader while acting as the chief purveyor of addiction. Tamil Nadu's policymakers must ask themselves a basic question. Should the health of its people depend on the sale of what ails them? (The writer is an advocate in the Madras high court) Email your feedback with name and address to

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store