Should The Age Of Consent Be Lowered?

Recently, in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Anurudh & Anr., the Supreme Court acknowledged the growing misuse of the POCSO Act, 2012, in consensual romantic relationships between adolescents where one party is a minor.

Legal Framework on Age of Consent in India

• Meaning of Age of Consent: The age of consent is the legally defined age at which an individual can consent to sexual activity.
  • In India, the age of consent is 18 under the gender-neutral POCSO Act, 2012.
  • Any person under 18 is legally a child, and consent is legally irrelevant.
  • Sexual acts with minors are treated as statutory rape based on presumed incapacity to consent.
• Mandatory Reporting under POCSO: Section 19 of the POCSO Act mandates that anyone who knows or suspects an offence must report it to the police or the Special Juvenile Police Unit.
• Alignment with Criminal Law: The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, amended IPC Section 375 and raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 years, aligning IPC with the POCSO framework.
  • The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, retained this position under Section 63.
• Historical Evolution of the Age of Consent: The age of consent was 10 years under the IPC, 1860.
  • It was raised to 12 under the Age of Consent Act, 1891, then to 14, and later to 16.
  • POCSO raised the age of consent to 18 years in 2012.
• Distinction from Minimum Age of Marriage: The age of consent is legally distinct from the minimum age of marriage.
  • Under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the minimum age is 18 for females and 21 for males.
    

Arguments in Favour of Reducing the Age of Consent

• High Share of Consensual Adolescent Cases: There has been a surge in POCSO cases involving adolescents aged 16–18, where the girl reports consensual relationships.
  • This indicates that the law is frequently invoked in romantic relationships rather than abuse cases.
• Autonomy and Sexual Agency of Adolescents: It is argued that adolescents aged 16–18 are capable of mature consent. They contend that criminalising such relationships violates personal autonomy.
• Original Objective of POCSO: POCSO was designed to prevent child sexual abuse, not to criminalise consensual adolescent intimacy.
• Evidence from National Surveys and Studies: NFHS-4 (2015–16) reported that 39% of girls had their first sexual experience before 18.
  • An Enfold study of 7,064 judgments found that 24.3% involved romantic relationships, and 82% of victims refused to testify.
  • Another study found that 25.4% of aggravated assault cases involved consensual relationships.
• Need for Nuanced Legal Response: It is suggested that the law should recognise the consent of adolescents aged 16 and above, while retaining strong safeguards against coercion, exploitation, and abuse of authority.
  • There is a need for shifting the conversation towards informed, open dialogue around sex education, relationships, and consent, rather than blanket criminalisation, which often leads to misuse.
• International Practice: Many Western democracies set the age of consent at 16.
  • Countries like the U.K. and Canada follow close-in-age or Romeo-Juliet exemptions to prevent criminalisation of teenage relationships.
    

Arguments Against Reducing the Age of Consent

• Risk of Weakening Child Protection: Reducing the age could enable trafficking and sexual exploitation under the guise of consent.
• Bright-Line Rule for Legal Certainty: Treating everyone under 18 as incapable of consent provides a clear, objective standard and avoids subjective judicial assessments of maturity and vulnerability.
• Prevalence of Abuse by Known Persons: A 2007 Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) study found that over 50% of abusers were known to the child.
  • In such situations, claims of consent may reflect coercion or emotional dependence.
• Risk of Normalising Exploitation: Diluting the law could suppress reporting and legitimise exploitative relationships. It may also encourage premature sexual activity among emotionally immature children.

Parliamentary and Law Commission Position

• Justice Verma Committee and Parliament: The Justice Verma Committee recommended retaining 16 as the age of consent under the IPC.
  • Parliament rejected this and raised the age to 18 through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
• Standing Committee Reports: The 240th HRD Standing Committee Report (2011) rejected the recognition of minor consent under POCSO.
  • The 167th Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2012) supported raising the age to 18 and opposed close-in-age exemptions.
• Law Commission Report, 2023: The 283rd Law Commission Report warned that lowering the age would make POCSO a “paper law”.
  • It cautioned that it would weaken action against child marriage, prostitution, and trafficking.

Judicial Responses and Interpretational Divide

• High Court Emphasis on Autonomy: The Delhi HC, in State vs Hitesh (2025), held that consensual adolescent relationships free from coercion should be recognised.
  • Bombay HC in Ashik Ramjaii Ansari vs State of Maharashtra (2023) held that sexual autonomy includes both engagement and protection.
• Strict Statutory Interpretation: The Delhi HC in Mohd. Rafayat Ali vs State of Delhi held that consent is legally immaterial if the victim is under 18.
• Supreme Court Position: On August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that POCSO does not recognise consensual sex with minors.
  • Under Article 142, it declined to impose a sentence in a specific case and clarified that it was not a precedent.
• Recent Judicial Observations: On August 19, 2025, Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that near-majority romantic relationships require different consideration.
  • The Court noted that parental complaints often convert elopement into POCSO cases.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Way Forward

• Clarify Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court should clarify conflicts between statutory law and High Court rulings to ensure uniform guidance for police, prosecutors, and trial courts.
• Go Beyond Law Alone: Policy must go beyond law alone by strengthening social support systems and education to address the complex realities of adolescence.
• Strengthen Structural Support: Governments should ensure comprehensive sex education, reproductive health services, and gender-sensitive, adolescent-friendly law enforcement.
• Prevent Parental Weaponisation: Legal processes must prevent misuse arising from parental opposition that clogs courts and erodes trust without addressing root causes.
• Introduce Pragmatic Safeguards: The law should introduce close-in-age exemptions for 16–18-year-olds within a 3–4-year gap, subject to mandatory judicial scrutiny to detect coercion or a power imbalance.
• Build Complementary Social Measures: Schools should strengthen education on consent, relationships, and emotional resilience to protect adolescents while respecting autonomy and reducing misuse of the law.

DOWNLOAD PDF