
Supreme Court Urged To Lower Age Of Consent From 18 To 16 Years In India
The senior lawyer contends that existing legislation inappropriately categorizes consensual romantic relationships among adolescents as abusive behavior, thereby disregarding their personal autonomy, emotional maturity, and decision-making capabilities. According to Jaising's submissions, there exists no substantial justification or scientific evidence supporting the 2013 decision to raise the consent age from 16 to 18 years, particularly since the lower age had been maintained for more than seven decades prior to this amendment.
Jaising emphasizes that the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013 implemented this change without proper parliamentary discussion and contrary to recommendations from the Justice Verma Committee, which had suggested maintaining 16 as the appropriate age of consent. She argues that contemporary adolescents reach physical and emotional maturity earlier than previous generations and possess the capacity to engage in meaningful romantic and sexual relationships based on personal choice.
Supporting her argument with empirical data, including statistics from the National Family Health Survey, Jaising notes that sexual activity among teenagers represents a normal aspect of adolescent development. She highlights alarming statistics showing a 180 percent increase in POCSO prosecutions involving minors aged 16 to 18 between 2017 and 2021, with many cases initiated by parents opposing inter-caste or inter-faith relationships, often against the wishes of the young women involved.
The advocate warns that criminalizing consensual sexual activity among teenagers creates harmful consequences, forcing young couples into secretive behavior, premature marriages, or legal difficulties rather than promoting healthy communication and comprehensive sex education. To address these concerns, she proposes implementing a "close-in-age" exception that would protect consensual sexual encounters between adolescents aged 16 to 18 from prosecution under current laws.
Drawing from international legal precedents and Indian constitutional jurisprudence, Jaising references the United Kingdom's Gillick decision and India's Puttaswamy privacy judgment to argue that legal capacity should not be rigidly determined by age alone. She maintains that decision-making autonomy forms a fundamental component of privacy rights and should extend to adolescents capable of making informed choices about their sexual lives.
The submission also acknowledges evolving judicial attitudes in various high courts, including those in Bombay, Madras, and Meghalaya, where judges have expressed concern about the automatic prosecution of adolescent boys under POCSO provisions. These courts have recognized that not all sexual activities involving minors constitute coercive behavior and have called for legal distinctions between genuine abuse and consensual relationships.
Jaising concludes her argument by urging the Supreme Court to formally declare that consensual sexual activity between adolescents aged 16 to 18 should not be classified as abuse and must be excluded from POCSO and rape law provisions. She also advocates for reviewing mandatory reporting requirements under Section 19 of POCSO, which discourage adolescents from seeking necessary medical care and support.
The senior advocate frames her argument within constitutional principles, asserting that sexual autonomy represents an integral aspect of human dignity and that preventing adolescents from making informed decisions about their bodies violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Chandigarh stalker Vikas Barala's name dropped from Haryana law officers' list
Ten days after he was appointed an assistant advocate general for Haryana, Vikas Barala, an accused in the 2017 Varnika Kundu stalking case, was dropped by the Nayab Singh Saini-led BJP government on Monday. Ten days after he was appointed an assistant advocate general for Haryana, Vikas Barala, an accused in the 2017 Varnika Kundu stalking case, was dropped by the Nayab Singh Saini-led BJP government on Monday. (HT file photo) According to sources, Vikas did not join following the controversy that erupted after the notification on the appointment of law officers was issued on July 18. On Sunday, the development comes a day after 45 retired IAS officers wrote an open letter to Saini against the decision to appoint Vikas, who is the son of Rajya Sabha member and former Haryana BJP chief Subhash Barala. 'We are shocked to learn that a stalking accused has been named AAG by your government. He will work as the state legal officer when he himself is on the wrong side of the law. By appointing him, you have gone against Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Beti Bachao slogan. Earlier, reacting to his appointment, complainant Varnika Kundu termed it a reflection of the 'values and standards' of the authorities. Varnika, 36, the daughter of retired IAS officer VS Kundu, posted on Instagram, 'Appointing someone to a public position of power is not just a political decision, it's a reflection of values and standards. Despite months of national media attention, it has dragged on for this long with little progress. Although we seem no closer to a conclusion than we were five years ago, I continue to hold faith in the judiciary until the verdict is announced, but I won't deny that faith has wavered.' The case was registered on August 4, 2017, under Sections 354-D, 341, 365, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code when Varnika, then a disco jockey (DJ), was allegedly stalked by accused Vikas and his friend Ashish. She was headed home when she noticed a car following her. The two accused attempted to block her path and tried to enter her vehicle. Sections of kidnapping were added after criticism of police functioning. The Chandigarh Police filed a 200-page chargesheet in the case on September 20, 2017. A district court framed charges on October 13, 2017, and trial began on October 27, 2017. Ever since, there have been over 100 hearings in the trial court, but repeatedly adjourned on various grounds. In February this year, the case was transferred to the court of judicial magistrate first class where it is currently being heard. It will next come up for hearing on August 2.


Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC issues notice to police on plea of Jamia violence accused Asif Iqbal
The Delhi high court on Monday issued notice to the city police in student activist Asif Iqbal Tanha's plea against a lower court's order framing charges against him in the 2019 Jamia violence case. The Delhi high court. (File Photo) The case stems from 2019-2020 protests at Jamia Millia Islamia and Shaheen Bagh following passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Parliament on December 11, 2019. On March 7, additional sessions judge Vishal Singh, presiding over the case at Saket court, had framed charges under various provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 109 (abetment of an offence), Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), sections 143, 147, 148, 149 (unlawful assembly and rioting), sections 186, 353, 332, 333, 308, 427, 435, 323, 341 (various charges related to assault, obstruction of public servants, grievous hurt, and damage to property) and sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The judge had observed that Aasif was named in the FIR as one of the persons who was present at the spot of violence and was leading the mob, which was also confirmed through the CDR and location of his mobile number. Besides Tanha, the trial court had also charged former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Sharjeel Imam, observing that he was not only an instigator but also one of the 'kingpins' of the larger conspiracy to incite violence during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Delhi in 2019. On Monday, justice Sanjeev Narula sought Delhi police's response and fixed October 30 as the next date of hearing, along with Shajreel's petition against the same order. In his petition, argued by advocate Siddharth Satija, Tanha argued that the order was passed without any due application of mind and appreciation of evidence on record. Besides the 2019 Jamia violence case, Tanha is also an accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The Delhi high court in 2021 granted bail to Tanha along with Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita in the conspiracy case, on the grounds of delay in trial.


Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
After citing ‘confusion', Haryana drops stalking accused Vikas Barala from list of 97 law officers
The Haryana government Monday dropped Vikas Barala, who is facing charges of sexual harassment for allegedly stalking and attempting to kidnap the daughter of an IAS officer eight years ago, from the list of 97 law officers. Sources said the government has communicated its decision to Barala, who was among the assistant advocate generals appointed by the state government. Haryana Advocate General Pravindra Singh Chauhan had told The Indian Express that 'there was some confusion, because there were two Vikas on the list'. He had also said that Barala, son of BJP Rajya Sabha MP Subhash Barala, had not joined and would not join. The Haryana government's July 18 notification listed appointments for the posts of assistant advocate generals, deputy advocate generals, senior deputy advocate generals, and additional advocate generals. The Indian Express reported that of the 97 law officers selected, at least 23 have connections to politicians, bureaucrats, judges, and IAS/IPS officers. The trial in the 2017 sexual harassment case against Barala is ongoing in a Chandigarh court, and he is currently out on bail. Vikas and his friend Ashish Kumar were booked on August 5, 2017, under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 354D (stalking), 341 (wrongful restraint), 365 (attempt to abduct) and 511, apart from charges of drunk driving. The complaint by a daughter of a Haryana-cadre IAS officer alleged that the duo chased and tried to enter her vehicle late at night in Chandigarh forcibly. Subhash Barala was serving as the Haryana BJP chief at that time. Following the woman's complaint, an FIR was filed at the Sector 26 police station. Vikas and Ashish were arrested on August 9, 2017, after significant public outcry. Charges were framed against the accused in October 2017. Vikas was lodged in Chandigarh's Model Jail at Burail until the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted him bail in January 2018. The next date of hearing in the trial is listed on August 2, 2025, for the recording of defence evidence.