Should the Age of Consent Be Lowered? 

Why in News?

• Supreme Court (Jan 10, 2026) in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Anurudh & Anr.:
  • Acknowledged misuse of POCSO, 2012 in consensual adolescent relationships.
  • Urged the Union government to consider corrective measures.
• Rising number of POCSO cases involving 16–18-year-olds where the relationship is claimed to be consensual.
• Renewed debate on the conflict between adolescent autonomy and child protection.

Relevance

GS II – Polity & Governance

• Child rights vs individual liberty.
• Judicial interpretation of social legislation.
• Role of Parliament vs judiciary.

GS I – Society

• Adolescence, sexuality, social norms.
• Gender and family dynamics.

Basics: What Is the Age of Consent?

• Age of consent: Legally defined age at which a person can consent to sexual activity.
• In India:
  • 18 years (gender-neutral).
  • Anyone below 18 is a “child” → consent is legally irrelevant.
• Sexual activity with a minor = statutory rape, irrespective of consent.

Legal Framework in India

POCSO Act, 2012

• Defines all persons under 18 years as children.
• Section 19:
  • Mandatory reporting of suspected offences.
• No distinction between:
  • Consensual adolescent relationships.
  • Exploitative sexual abuse.

IPC / Criminal Law

• Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013:
  • Raised age of consent from 16 → 18.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
  • Section 63: Sexual acts with a woman under 18 constitute rape, with or without consent.

Distinction to Note

• Age of consent ≠ Age of marriage:
  • Marriage: 18 (female), 21 (male).
  • Consent law deals with sexual autonomy, not marital validity.

Historical Evolution of Age of Consent

• 1860 IPC: 10 years
• 1891: 12 years
• Later raised to 14, then 16
• 2012 (POCSO): Raised to 18
• Trend reflects:
  • Increasing emphasis on child protection, not autonomy.

Arguments in Favour of Lowering the Age (to 16)

1. Criminalisation of Consensual Adolescence

• Large share of POCSO cases involve romantic relationships.
• Enfold study (2016–2020):
  • 7,064 POCSO judgments analysed.
  • 24.3% involved romantic relationships.
  • 82% victims refused to testify against the accused.

2. Ground Reality of Adolescent Sexuality

• NFHS-4 (2015–16):
  • 11% girls had first sexual experience before 15.
  • 39% before 18.
• Law ignores biological and social realities.

3. Judicial Concerns

• Bombay HC (2023):
  • Sexual autonomy includes both:
    • Right to engage.
    • Right to protection.
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna (SC, 2025):
  • Romantic relationships near majority age should be treated differently.
  • POCSO often used by parents to criminalise elopement.

4. Comparative Practice

• Many democracies (UK, Canada, EU):
  • Age of consent: 16.
  • Use “close-in-age” (Romeo–Juliet) exemptions.

Arguments Against Lowering the Age

1. Risk of Weakening Child Protection

• Majority of abuse cases involve:
  • Known persons (family, neighbours, caregivers).
• MWCD Study (2007):
  • Over 50% of abusers known to the child.
• Consent in such power-imbalanced relationships is often illusory.

2. Deterrence Against Exploitation

• Bright-line rule (under 18 = no consent):
  • Avoids subjective interpretation.
  • Simplifies enforcement.
• Dilution may:
  • Enable trafficking.
  • Mask coercion as “consent”.

3. Parliamentary & Expert Consensus

• Justice Verma Committee: Recommended 16, but Parliament chose 18.
• Standing Committees (2011, 2012):
  • Rejected recognising minor consent.
• Law Commission (283rd Report, 2023):
  • Lowering age would make POCSO a “paper law”.

Judicial Tightrope

• Courts acknowledge:
  • Harsh impact of blanket criminalisation.
• Yet repeatedly affirm:
  • Consent is legally immaterial under POCSO.
• Example:
  • SC (Aug 2024):
    • Overturned Calcutta HC acquittal in a POCSO case involving a 14-year-old.
    • Conviction upheld; sentence waived under Article 142 (not precedent).

The Core Policy Dilemma

• Adolescent autonomy vs Child protection.
• Binary choice (18 vs 16) is inadequate.
• Real issue:
  • Distinguishing consensual peer relationships from exploitative abuse.

Middle-Path Solutions

• No blanket reduction of age of consent.
• Introduce:
  • Close-in-age exemption for 16–18-year-olds (e.g., ≤3–4 years gap).
  • Mandatory judicial scrutiny for coercion or abuse.
• Complement legal reform with:
  • Comprehensive sex education.
  • Adolescent-friendly reproductive health services.
  • Gender-sensitive policing and counselling.

Takeaway

• The age-of-consent debate is not about lowering protection, but about recalibrating the law to distinguish adolescent autonomy from exploitation without diluting the core safeguards of child protection.

---