The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday observed that sex education should be provided to children “from a younger age and not class IX onwards,” while granting bail to a 15-year-old boy accused of sexual assault. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe made the crucial observation after reviewing the Uttar Pradesh government’s curriculum, ultimately setting aside a High Court order that had denied bail to the juvenile.
Case Background
The appeal was filed by a juvenile accused of offences under Section 376 (rape) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The case reached the Supreme Court after the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in an order dated August 28, 2024, rejected the appellant’s bail plea.
Considering that the appellant “was himself a fifteen-year-old boy,” the Supreme Court had already granted him interim bail on September 10, 2025, with conditions to be set by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Court’s Scrutiny of Sex Education
The bench had previously, on August 12, 2025, directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to submit an affidavit detailing how sex education is integrated into the school curriculum. The court’s objective was to ensure “that young adolescents are made aware of the hormonal changes that come with puberty and the consequences that may flow therefrom.”
In compliance, the state filed an affidavit on October 6, 2025, outlining the curriculum for classes IX to XII, which it stated was based on NCERT directives.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon reviewing the state’s submission, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the current framework. The bench recorded a significant observation in its final order:
“However, we are of the opinion that sex education should be provided to the children from a younger age and not class IX onwards. It is for the authorities concerned to apply their mind and take corrective measures, so that children are informed of the changes that happen after puberty and the care and cautions to be taken in relation thereto.”
While pointing out this systemic gap, the court left the implementation of these “corrective measures” to the discretion of the concerned authorities.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, making the interim bail granted on September 10, 2025, absolute. The bail will remain in force for the duration of the criminal trial. The Court was careful to note that its observations were made strictly for the purpose of deciding the bail application. “We clarify that we have not made any observations/comments on the merits of the case,” the order stated.
