Senior Advocate Indira Jaising Urges SC To Revise The Age Of Consent From 18 To 16

Senior advocate Indira Jaising has urged the Supreme Court of India to reconsider and revise the current legal age of consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, recommending a reduction from 18 years to 16 years.

Her call comes during deliberations in the ongoing case of Nipun Saxena & Anr. vs. Union of India, a case that has come to represent broader issues concerning women’s safety, sexual autonomy, and legal reform in India.

Jaising submitted her written arguments to the apex court, as reported by legal news platform Bar and Bench, focusing on how the law, in its current form, disproportionately criminalises consensual romantic and sexual relationships between adolescents aged 16 to 18 years.

She argued that the blanket criminalisation of sexual activity below 18 fails to differentiate between exploitative adult-minor abuse and consensual relationships between peers.

“The law in its present form disproportionately penalises adolescents in consensual sexual relationships,” Jaising wrote, pointing out how teenage boys are often charged under the stringent provisions of POCSO despite clear evidence and even admission by the complainant that the relationship was mutual and consensual.

Jaising traced the legal evolution of the age of consent in India, highlighting that until the POCSO Act came into effect in 2012, the age of consent under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was 16 years.

She emphasised that the change to 18 years was implemented without any robust scientific or empirical basis, calling the shift an overly paternalistic move aimed at shielding adolescent girls rather than enabling them to exercise autonomy over their personal and sexual choices.

She further asserted that this legal inflexibility undermines adolescents’ fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and autonomy, as guaranteed under the Constitution. According to Jaising, modern-day adolescents deserve legal recognition of their evolving capacities, particularly in consensual sexual matters.

Drawing on recommendations from multiple expert bodies such as the Justice Verma Committee (constituted in the aftermath of the 2012 Nirbhaya case) and the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Laws, Jaising proposed a nuanced approach that would reflect both contemporary societal realities and international legal standards.

She underscored that the intention behind reducing the age of consent is not to decriminalise exploitative acts, which would still be punishable under existing rape and coercion laws.

To ensure protection against misuse or abuse, she suggested introducing a rebuttable presumption of consent for adolescents aged 16 and above.

Under this framework, courts could evaluate the presence of coercion, deceit, power imbalance, or grooming in relationships to determine whether consent was meaningful and valid.

However, the Union Government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, opposed the proposal. Bhati argued that reducing the age of consent could have grave repercussions, potentially exposing young adolescents—especially girls—to increased vulnerability and exploitation.

The government maintained that the POCSO Act’s framework is based on the assumption that individuals under 18 are inherently vulnerable and must be provided with the highest level of legal protection. Altering the age of consent, the Centre argued, would undermine this protective mechanism and dilute the law’s intent.

Citing National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, the Centre pointed out that a substantial percentage of POCSO cases involve adult perpetrators assaulting minors, thereby justifying the need to retain 18 as the age threshold.

Moreover, government counsel emphasised that courts already possess discretionary power during sentencing to consider the consensual nature of relationships when warranted.

With written submissions now filed by both sides, the Supreme Court is expected to resume hearings on August 20, where it will continue examining the complex interplay between adolescent rights, protection from abuse, and evolving social norms.

It is important to note that Indira Jaising has been appointed as amicus curiae—a “friend of the court”—entrusted with presenting an independent legal perspective. While she is not a direct party in the case, her role is to aid the court by offering insights that help ensure a just and informed decision.

This case has sparked a wider national conversation about how the law should address adolescent sexuality, and whether India’s current legal system balances protection with recognition of autonomy in an era where teenagers are increasingly aware, engaged, and active in shaping their own identities and relationships.

#POCSOAct #IndiraJaising #AgeOfConsent #SupremeCourtIndia #ChildProtectionLaws #AdolescentRights #SexualAutonomy #NipunSaxenaCase #LegalReforms #JusticeVermaCommittee #AmicusCuriae #IndianJudiciary #RightToPrivacy #TeenageConsentDebate #CriminalLawReform #IndiaLawUpdates #WomensSafety #HumanRightsIndia #ChildRightsIndia