
Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 yrs, SC told
Jaising, who is assisting the top court in "Nipun Saxena v. Union of India" case, has filled her written submissions challenging the blanket criminalisation of sexual activity involving adolescents aged 16 to 18 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 and Section 375 of IPC.
She has argued the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights.
Jaising said the legal framework wrongly equates consensual relationships between adolescents with abuse, ignoring their autonomy, maturity, and capacity to consent.
'There is no rational reason or empirical data to justify the increase in the age of consent from 16 to 18 years,' Jaising submitted, noting that the age had remained at 16 for over 70 years until it was raised by the Criminal Law Act, 2013.
She pointed out the increase came without debate and went against the Justice Verma Committee's recommendation to retain 16 as the age of consent.
The amicus curiae submitted adolescents today attain puberty earlier and are capable of forming romantic and sexual relationships of their choice.
Scientific and social data, including findings from the National Family Health Survey, indicate sexual activity among teenagers is not uncommon, she said.
Jaising cited a 180 per cent rise in prosecutions under POCSO involving minors aged 16–18 between 2017 and 2021.
'Most complaints are filed by parents, often against the girl's will, in cases involving inter-caste or inter-faith relationships,' she said, cautioning criminalising consensual sex 'forces young couples into hiding, marriage or legal trouble, instead of encouraging open dialogue and education".
To address this, she urged the court to read into the law a 'close-in-age' exception, which would exempt consensual sexual acts between adolescents aged 16 to 18 from prosecution under POCSO and IPC.
'Criminalising sex between teenagers is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against the best interests of children,' she said.
The senior lawyer referred to international norms and Indian jurisprudence to argue that legal capacity is not strictly age-bound.
Quoting the UK's Gillick ruling and India's own Puttaswamy privacy judgment, she said 'autonomy in decision-making is central to the right to privacy' and must extend to adolescents capable of informed sexual choices.
The submission also pointed to trends in various high courts, including Bombay, Madras, and Meghalaya, where judges have expressed disapproval over the automatic prosecution of adolescent boys under POCSO.
These courts have stressed not all sexual acts involving minors are coercive, and the law should distinguish between abuse and consensual relationships.
Jaising concluded urging the top court to declare consensual sex between adolescents aged between 16 and 18 was not a form of abuse and must be excluded from the purview of POCSO and rape laws.
She called for a review of the mandatory reporting obligations under Section 19 of POCSO, which deter adolescents from seeking safe medical care.
'Sexual autonomy is part of human dignity,' she said, "and denying adolescents the ability to make informed choices about their own bodies was a violation of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution."
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags

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


New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Some parties ignored voter roll checks in time: ECI defends deletions; Congress raises concern
NEW DELHI: Days after the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish a list of 65 lakh deleted voter names in Bihar along with the reasons, the poll body, in a statement on Saturday, said that utmost transparency is the hallmark of electoral roll preparation, as per law, rules, and guidelines. The statement comes a day ahead of Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi's fortnight-long Vote Adhikar Yatra, scheduled to begin on Sunday in Bihar. In a veiled reference to the allegations of the Congress on irregularities in voters' lists, the ECI said it seemed to the panel that some political parties and their booth-level agents (BLAs) did not examine the electoral rolls at the appropriate time and did not point out errors, if any, to Sub-Divisional Magistrates/ Electoral Registration Officers, District Election Officers or Chief Election Officers. It further said that it continues to welcome the scrutiny of electoral rolls by political parties and any elector. Responding to the ECI, Congress general secretary K C Venugopal said the ECI has crossed all limits of shamelessness by shrugging all its responsibilities in the face of grave allegations of vote theft and mass rigging. Constitutional authorities are expected to be the epitome of probity - not hide behind vaguely drafted press notes to mask their guilt in destroying democracy, he said in a statement. The tone and tenor of the press note raise greater suspicions that the ECI will take no steps to address the public's grave concerns about mass-scale vote rigging allegedly done by the BJP-controlled poll body, he said. 'If the ECI 'welcomes the scrutiny of electoral rolls', the Chief Election Commissioner and other ECs must come clean on why they still refuse to provide parties with machine-readable electoral rolls and why CCTV footage is being deleted,' Venugopal added. The ECI, in its statement, reiterated that pure electoral rolls strengthen democracy, and political parties are involved at each stage of their preparation. 'Appropriate time and opportunity are given to electors and political parties to rectify errors, if any. The election system for Parliament and Assembly elections in India is a multi-layered decentralised construct as envisaged by law,' it said.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Rahul-Tejas yatra a circus, says BJP
Patna: BJP has termed the "Vote Adhikar Yatra" of Congress MP Rahul Gandhi and RJD leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav from Sasaram on Sunday as a circus which people may watch but will not pay attention to. BJP spokesperson Neeraj Kumar said the Supreme Court has ordered the Election Commission on the voter list revision in Bihar. "So what are they trying to spread confusion about? These people do the politics of spreading rumours only, Their yatra is like a circus which people will enjoy," he said. Union minister Giriraj Singh called Rahul a family thug and said he is coming to Bihar only to do vote bank politics drama. "They do not follow the orders of the Supreme Court and High Court. They live with a dictatorial mentality. There is a saying, 'the thief is speaking against theft'. Rahul is doing the same thing," he said. HAM(S) national president and minister Santosh Suman on Saturday said the people of Bihar will teach a lesson to Rahul who is making baseless allegations of vote theft. "He is insulting the state voters by calling them thieves but became an MP by their votes. The govts Congress formed in the states by the votes of the same people should also resign. Congress's number increased from 52 to 99 seats in the Lok Sabha elections because of vote theft?" he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo BJP national spokesperson Ajay Alok termed Rahul as a borrowed Gandhi. Addressing a presser at Sasaram on Saturday, he said Rahul and Tejashwi want to spread chaos in the country. First the Election Commission, then the ED, CBI, income-tax department and now the Supreme Court - the opposition is targeting these institutions, he said. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Krishna Janmashtami Wishes ,, messages , and quotes !


The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Centre should not have asked President to issue Reference, says Kerala
The State of Kerala said the Centre should not have advised President Droupadi Murmu to issue a Presidential Reference, 'obliquely' challenging the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment prescribing timelines for the President and Governors to deal with State Bills, for the sole reason that the Union Council of Ministers did not see eye-to-eye with the Supreme Court verdict of April 8. 'The fact that the Council of Ministers advising the President disagree with or do not accept a judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court is no basis to exercise the power under Article 143 by advising the President to refer questions that are no longer res integra for this Court to decide. Such jurisdiction does not vest in this Court, nor can it be vested in it by the Council of Ministers under Article 143,' Kerala argued in its submissions prepared by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and advocate C.K. Sasi. The State said the questions referred by the President were no longer res integra (an unaddressed question of law). Kerala agreed with Tamil Nadu's stand that the April 8 judgment had comprehensively dealt with every single question of law raised in the Presidential Reference. A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is scheduled to hear the Reference from August 19, 2025. The hearing would begin with Kerala and Tamil Nadu both raising preliminary objections before the five-judge Bench about the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. 'The power of the President to refer questions under Article 143 to the Supreme Court is contingent on the fact that 'a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise' and hence is not res integra. The questions, however, referred to this court ex facie show that no question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, as the very questions already stand conclusively and determinatively answered by the Supreme Court,' Kerala argued. Besides, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have invoked Article 141 of the Constitution. Article 141 mandates that law laid down by the apex court in a judgment, in this case the Tamil Nadu Governor case verdict, is binding on the Council of Ministers. An opinion rendered by a Constitution Bench under an advisory jurisdiction to a Presidential Reference would not supplant or override a binding judgment of the apex court. 'The Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered by court in the Tamil Nadu case. It has thus accepted the judgment. The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference,' Kerala submitted.