Centre opposes lowering consent age from 18 to 16, warns it’ll trigger abuse

In a written submission filed in the Supreme Court, the Union of India submitted that “any suggestion to amend or dilute the age of consent by introducing legislative exceptions would be contrary to the original legislative intent and open the door to child abuse, coercion and the misuse of consent in exploitative contexts”.

Explaining the rationale behind keeping the age of consent at 18 years, it said, “The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at 18 years and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence, irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered and coherent statutory policy.

“This principle is not confined to a single enactment but is consistently reflected across multiple enactments, most notably the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and its successor, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS),” it submitted.

The top court has been hearing a PIL filed by Nipun Saxena in 2012 on the issue of age of consent. Amicus Curiae Indira Jaising has suggested that the court should read in an exception excluding sexual activity between consenting adolescents between the age of 16 and 18 from the scope of the POCSO Act and relevant laws in order to decriminalise voluntary adolescent relationships.

She contended that “relationships between persons between the age of 16 and 18 or 16 and 20 could be non-exploitative, non-abusive or non-criminal”. However, the Centre said, “The statutory age of consent fixed at 18 years must… be strictly and uniformly enforced. Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law and undermine the deterrent character of statutes like the POCSO Act and the BNS. Any statutory dilution of the age of consent would severely undermine the child protection shield envisioned by the legislature and weaken the resolve to prosecute offences that are inherently exploitative in nature”.

It said “reducing the age of consent would imply legal recognition of sexual consent by minors and shift the burden of judgment and scrutiny onto the victims who cannot process or articulate informed consent or the repercussions thereof”.

The Centre said, “Therefore, discretion on case-to-case basis must remain judicial and not be read into the statute as

a general exception or diluted standard. Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law. A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent.”

Citing the Ministry of Women and Child Development’s 2007 “Study on Child Abuse: India 2007”, the Centre said that 53.22 per cent of children reported facing one or more forms of sexual abuse and 50 per cent of abusers were persons in positions of trust or authority, such as parents, relatives, neighbours, or school staff.” The report concluded that children were particularly vulnerable when the offender was a known figure, as in such cases the abuse was concealed, normalised or silenced through emotional manipulation or fear, it submitted.

No to diluted law

“A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent” Centre in apex court