Senior advocate Indira Jaising has reportedly called upon the Supreme Court to reconsider the strict age of consent mandated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, 2012, recommending a reduction from 18 to 16 years.
Jaising’s suggestion came in the ongoing case of Nipun Saxena & Anr. vs. Union of India, which focuses on reforms to improve the safety and dignity of women, legal news website Bar and Bench reported.
In her written submissions, Jaising argued that the current legal threshold penalises adolescents engaged in consensual relationships.
“The law in its present form disproportionately penalises adolescents in consensual sexual relationships,” she reportedly said.
The issue stems from divergent high court rulings on whether consensual relationships between minors aged 16 to 18 should be prosecuted under Pocso.
Many recent cases have seen boys charged under the law despite the complainant admitting to a consensual relationship, due to the statutory bar on recognising consent below 18.
Tracing the evolution of the legal age of consent in India, Jaising noted that the Indian Penal Code had set it at 16 until Pocso came into force in 2012, raising it to 18 without any scientific or empirical justification.
According to her, the shift was “driven by an overly paternalistic desire to protect adolescent girls” and failed to reflect real-world dynamics. She submitted that adolescents between 16 and 18 deserve the right to privacy and autonomy in their sexual decisions.
Jaising also drew on multiple expert recommendations, including the Justice Verma Committee Report and the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Laws, to support her argument for aligning the age of consent with global and social realities.
She clarified that lowering the age would not decriminalise exploitative acts because legal provisions such as those related to rape or coercion would still apply.
To further protect minors, she proposed introducing a rebuttable presumption of consent for those aged 16 and above — an approach that could weigh factors like coercion, power imbalance, or deceit.
Centre opposes move
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the government, said that reducing the age of consent would expose adolescents — particularly girls — to increased risk of exploitation.
The Centre maintained that the Pocso framework is grounded in the premise that anyone under 18 is especially vulnerable and needs comprehensive legal protection. “There is no need to alter this legislative intent,” the government submitted.
Citing data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the Centre pointed out that a significant proportion of Pocso cases involve adults assaulting minors. It stressed that keeping the age limit at 18 ensures “robust protection” for children.
The government counsel highlighted that existing legal provisions already allow courts to consider the consensual nature of a relationship during sentencing.
With written submissions now on record from both sides, the Supreme Court is set to resume hearings on the matter on August 20.
Amicus curiae, meaning "friend of the court," refers to an individual or organisation not directly involved in a case but appointed by the court to offer expertise or insights that may assist in reaching a just decision.
Jaising was appointed to provide independent legal perspective on the broader implications of the case.