Latest news with #Jaising
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Consensual sex between adolocents aged 16 to 18 years must not be treated as abuse: amicus curiae to SC
Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising has argued that consensual sexual acts by teenagers, aged between 16 and 18, in voluntary relationships cannot be classified as 'abuse' or prosecuted as a crime. The written submissions filed by Ms. Jaising in the apex court is part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena dating back to 2012. The amicus's brief has challenged the age of pegged at 18 years by the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) to the extent that it works to criminalise 'consensual sexual activity between children between the age of 16-18'. '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's submissions said. The senior advocate, who was India's first woman Additional Solicitor General of India, said the exemption for consensual sexual acts between individuals in this age group must be read into the POCSO Act and also Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and its corresponding provision, Section 63, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Definition of 'child' She submitted that the word 'child' in Section 2(d) of POCSO should not include individuals aged between 16 and 18 who engage in consensual sexual activity. 'Without reading down the statutory age of consent set at 18, it is prayed that the Supreme Court read into the impugned provisions a 'close-in-age exception', applicable when both parties to the sexual act are adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 and the sexual act is consensual. Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' Ms. Jaising reasoned in her submissions prepared with the assistance of advocates Paras Nath Singh, S. Sherwani, Rohin Bhat and R. Sinha. 'No reason to increase age for consent to 18 years' The case in question contains a challenge against the increase of age of consent from 16 yeats to 18 years through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. 'The age of consent was static at 16 for 80 years. No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase. The BNS has also kept a legislative scheme similar to the one in the Criminal Law Amendment Act,' the amicus curiae submitted. She argued that the increase in the age of consent violated the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity, having regard to the fact that they have attained puberty giving rise to sexual awareness. 'Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and the development of sexual relationships of choice. Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law,' the submissions contended.
Hans India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Supreme Court Urged To Lower Age Of Consent From 18 To 16 Years In India
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.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Amicus counters government stand, says it violates right to autonomy
NEW DELHI: Opposing the government's firm stand not to lower the age of consent below 18 years, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising told Supreme Court that it criminalised "consensual sexual activity between children in the age group of 16-18 years, and violated their right to autonomy". Presenting a counter to Centre's stand in the case, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and "neither any rational reason was given justifying the increase to 18 years nor was there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase". "Until enactment of Pocso Act , there was no law dealing with sexual offences against children. The newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Section 63, has kept a legislative scheme similar to the one in Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, that amended IPC to increase the age of consent to 18 years," she said. Jaising said increase in age of consent violated right of autonomy of children in 16-18 age group, who could give mature consent to sexual activity given the fact that they had attained puberty and, consequentially, sexual awareness. However, she put in an important caveat. "This brief does not suggest that anyone above the age of 18 who has sex with another below the age of 18 be decriminalised," she said. "Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and development of sexual relationships of choice," Jaising said, adding, "Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law. " Jaising requested SC to "declare that any consensual sexual activity between children of the ages of 16-18 constitutes an exception to penal provisions of the statute as being 'close in age', non-abusive and non-exploitative". Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals, she said, adding, "Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious relationships or inter-caste relationships. "Consensual sexual relations between adolescents in the 16-18 age bracket need not necessarily result in marriage, but on the contrary, criminalising such sexual behaviour will result in children eloping and getting married to avoid being prosecuted by Pocso." She suggested to the court that the law as it stands requires to be read down to include a 'close in age' exception when the sexual activity is consensual.
Deccan Herald
5 days ago
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Supreme Court urged to bring down age of consent, plea says most plaints filed by parents
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 (POCSO), 2012 and Section 375 of IPC.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
'Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 years': Plea filed in SC
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. 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 (POCSO), 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 (Amendment) 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 1618 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. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
