Age of Consent Debate: New Report Warns Against Weakening India's POCSO Act
In a robust new analysis that directly confronts a contentious public debate, a coalition of non-profit organizations has released a report warning against any move to lower India's age of consent. Titled "Intrusion on Civilization: Lowering the Age of Consent - Analysing Its Impact," the document is a collaborative effort by the Network for Access to Justice and Multidisciplinary Outreach Foundation, the Sewa Nyaya Utthan Foundation, and the Shanti Suraksha Aur Sadbhav Trust.
The report meticulously deconstructs the popular narrative that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is being widely misused to criminalize "innocent teenage romance." Instead, it argues with a wealth of statistical evidence that a reduction in the legal age from 18 to 16 would not only weaken the nation's protective legal framework but also inadvertently legitimize and enable child exploitation.
Lawbeat has consistently reported on judicial pronouncements from multiple High Courts, including the Allahabad, Delhi, and Madras High Courts, that stress the need for discretion, urging a distinction between genuine sexual exploitation, the law's intended target, and consensual affection between adolescents. These orders, while not challenging the legal age of consent, underscore a growing judicial sentiment that the Act was never meant to criminalize teenage love, and that a "bio-social approach" is necessary to prevent the law from becoming a tool that harms, rather than protects, young individuals caught in romantic relationships.
In 2023, the Law Commission had suggested applying guided judicial discretion in sentencing in cases where there is tacit approval of relationship by girls of 16 to 18 years, instead of lowering the existing age of consent under the POCSO Act.
Significantly, the Centre has also formally informed the Supreme Court that it has no intention of lowering the age of consent from 18. The Ministry of Women and Child Development in response to petitions seeking a review of the current law, told the court that the age of 18 is a "legally non-negotiable" standard as the existing POCSO Act is an essential protective measure that aligns with constitutional provisions and international obligations. The Centre cautioned that introducing an exception for "close-in-age" relationships could weaken the law and create legal ambiguities, potentially making it easier to mask child exploitation as consensual activity. The Supreme Court is expected to hear these petitions on August 20, 2025.
Historical and Legal Context
Before the POCSO Act in 2012, India's legal framework was fragmented, with the Indian Penal Code (IPC) setting the age of consent at 16 but containing a "troubling exception" for marital intercourse with wives as young as 15. The report argues that POCSO was passed to address these gaps, creating a dedicated child-specific law. Critically, parliamentary debates at the time affirmed that the government viewed the new age of consent at 18 as an "essential protective measure," with no intention of diluting it.
Statistical Evidence of Child Abuse and POCSO Cases
Statistical evidence from the National Crime Records Bureau's (NCRB) 2022 report reveals a stark reality: crimes against children are on the rise, with an 8.7% increase year-on-year. The report highlights that over half of these cases (56.6%) fall under the POCSO Act. A closer look at the data shows that the most prevalent offenses are severe, with 56% of cases involving Penetrative Sexual Assault. This data, along with a 2007 study showing that over 50% of child sexual abuse victims knew their perpetrators, challenges the notion that such abuse is rare or confined to specific groups, underscoring the critical need for robust child protection measures.
The Intersection of POCSO, Marriage, and Personal Laws
The report highlights a critical intersection between the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006, noting that the age of consent at 18 was deliberately aligned with the legal age of marriage for girls. This "bright line rule" is challenged by instances where personal laws are invoked to justify underage marriages, as seen in the Gulam Deen v. State of Punjab & Haryana case, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to a couple married under Muslim personal law, even though the girl was 16. While the Supreme Court has stayed that order, the ongoing adjudication underscores the potential for personal laws to undermine secular child protection statutes.
The report further points to a persistent issue of child marriage in India, with nearly 23% of women marrying before 18, and warns that lowering the age of consent would only embolden those who justify such marriages, creating a convenient legal defense against prosecution.
Socio-Cultural Context and Public Health Concerns
Beyond demographics, India is home to 472 million children, a significant portion of its population—the report highlights key socio-cultural and public health concerns. It underscores that in the Indian context, "consent" is not a simple concept due to deeply ingrained gender hierarchies and community pressure. Treating a minor's consent at face value, the report cautions, risks masking exploitation.
Furthermore, from a public health standpoint, the report cites a study in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Health that concluded, "Children born to adolescent mothers are at risk of being undernourished". It also cites international examples, noting that countries like Romania and Bulgaria, with ages of consent at 16 and 14, respectively, have some of the highest teenage birth rates in Europe.
So, the report concludes that the solution is not to reduce the legal threshold but to ensure the sensitive and judicious application of the existing law.
It emphasizes the critical importance of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This provision empowers the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct a "preliminary assessment" for children aged 16 to 18 who are accused of a "heinous offence." This assessment is not a trial but a crucial step to determine whether the act was a result of criminal intent or a manifestation of a behavioral issue related to their age. By allowing for a deeper dive into the mental and physical maturity of the child and the circumstances of the alleged offense, the Act provides a vital tool to differentiate between predatory behavior and consensual adolescent conduct.
The report emphasizes that this section is key to ensuring that the existing legal framework can be applied with the necessary sensitivity, thereby upholding the law's protective intent while safeguarding the future of young individuals.
Drawing upon the philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi, the report links his educational ideology to modern child protection. It posits that Gandhi's emphasis on morally upright educators and a holistic, "Nayee-Talim" approach to learning remains critically relevant. This framework, the report argues, is essential for guiding children toward "moral discernment" and is particularly vital for reaching vulnerable children who are out of school or in religious institutions like Madrasas.
The report says that the safety of India's children is not merely a policy issue but a "litmus test of our humanity".