Senior advocate and amicus curiae Indira Jaising has urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the statutory age of consent, calling for it to be read down from 18 to 16 years to protect the constitutional rights and sexual autonomy of adolescents.
In her written submissions to the top court in the ongoing Nipun Saxena v. Union of India case, Jaising strongly criticised the blanket criminalisation of consensual sexual relationships between teenagers aged 16 to 18 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 and Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She contended that the law, in its current form, equates consensual adolescent relationships with sexual abuse and thereby violates the rights to privacy, equality, and dignity enshrined in the Constitution.
“There is no rational reason or empirical data to justify the increase in the age of consent from 16 to 18 years,” Jaising submitted, pointing out that the age had been 16 for over seven decades until it was increased by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013—against the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee.
Jaising argued that modern adolescents mature earlier and are capable of forming informed, consensual romantic relationships. Citing data from the National Family Health Survey and other scientific sources, she said that sexual activity among teenagers is a social reality and cannot be addressed solely through criminal law.
Between 2017 and 2021, prosecutions under POCSO involving consensual adolescent relationships rose by 180 per cent. Most of these cases, Jaising claimed, stemmed from parental disapproval, particularly in inter-faith or inter-caste relationships.
“Instead of encouraging open dialogue and education, the law forces young couples into hiding, early marriage, or criminal proceedings,” she said.
To address this, she advocated for a “close-in-age” exemption in the law — a legal mechanism that would decriminalise consensual sexual activity between adolescents aged 16 to 18.
Jaising also referenced both international and Indian jurisprudence, including the UK’s Gillick competence principle and India’s Puttaswamy judgment on privacy, to argue that autonomy in sexual decision-making must be recognised for adolescents capable of informed consent.
She pointed to recent observations from various High Courts — including Bombay, Madras, and Meghalaya — where judges have expressed concern over the rigid application of POCSO in consensual teen relationships and stressed the need to differentiate between coercion and mutual consent.
Jaising further called for a review of the mandatory reporting clause under Section 19 of POCSO, stating that it discourages teenagers from seeking medical help and honest guidance, thereby endangering their health and wellbeing.
“Sexual autonomy is part of human dignity,” she concluded. “Denying adolescents the right to make informed choices about their bodies violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.”
