Latest news with #Section375
India Today
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- India Today
7 Indian courtroom films, shows to watch on OTT
7 Indian courtroom films, shows to watch on OTT With Akshay Kumar and Arshad Warsi's Jolly LLB 3 teaser out, take a look at other courtroom dramas and films to watch on OTT. Credit: Instagram/AkshayKumar The black comedy legal drama by Subhash Kapoor is a sequel to his 2013 film Jolly LLB. Akshay Kumar plays the titular character, Jagdishwar Mishra. Jolly LLB 2 The film starring Amitabh Bachchan and Taapsee Pannu received widespread critical acclaim for the cast performances, execution, story, screenplay and direction. Pink The legal thriller by Ajay Bahl is based on Section 375 of the Indian Penal stars Akshaye Khanna, Richa Chadda, Meera Chopra and Rahul Bhat. Section 375 The film is set against the backdrop of a Muslim family. Shot across Varanasi and Lucknow, Mulk stars Rishi Kapoor and Taapsee Pannu. Mulk The Tamil legal drama by T J Gnanavel stars Suriya, Lijomol Jose and Manikandan with Rajisha Vijayan. The film is about police bias and state violence against a marginalised community. Jai Bhim The legal television series streaming on Disney+ Hotstar is an adaptation of Robert King and Michelle King's The Good Wife and features Kajol in the lead role. The Trial: Pyaar Kaanoon Dhokha The television series streaming on Netflix is directed by Rahul Pandey. It stars Ravi Kishan, Anant V Joshi, Nidhi Bisht, Naila Grrewal, Tanvi Azmi, and Yashpal Sharma. Maamla Legal Hai
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
'Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 years': Plea filed in SC
The Supreme Court has been urged by amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. 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 (POCSO), 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 (Amendment) 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 1618 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. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
The Hindu
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 years, Supreme Court told
The Supreme Court has been urged by amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Ms. 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 (POCSO), 2012 and Section 375 of IPC. She has argued the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights. Ms. 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,' Ms. Jaising submitted, noting that the age had remained at 16 for over 70 years until it was raised by the Criminal Law (Amendment) 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. Ms. Jaising cited a 180% 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 U.K.'s Gillick ruling and India's own Puttaswamy privacy judgement, 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. Ms. 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."
Time of India
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 yrs, SC told
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court has been urged by amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 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 ( POCSO ), 2012 and Section 375 of has argued the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional 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 (Amendment) Act, pointed out the increase came without debate and went against the Justice Verma Committee 's recommendation to retain 16 as the age of amicus curiae submitted adolescents today attain puberty earlier and are capable of forming romantic and sexual relationships of their and social data, including findings from the National Family Health Survey, indicate sexual activity among teenagers is not uncommon, she 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 senior lawyer referred to international norms and Indian jurisprudence to argue that legal capacity is not strictly 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 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 courts have stressed not all sexual acts involving minors are coercive, and the law should distinguish between abuse and consensual 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 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."
Hindustan Times
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 yrs, SC told
New Delhi, The Supreme Court has been urged by amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. 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.
