In his essay, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl Marx observed, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”. Marx was discussing the 1799 coup that brought Napolean Bonaparte to power and the 1851 coup by Louis Bonaparte (Napoleon III). The first incident is understood to be based on material circumstances of the time, the second is a pale imitation. The reverse, however, is true of the renewed debate over the Age of Consent issue, currently before the Supreme Court of India.
We may recall that in 1889, a child bride, Phoolmani, then 10-years-old, died on her wedding night after her husband, Hari Mohan Maiti, 30-years-old, consummated the marriage. He was charged for rape and murder, but was acquitted of the charge of rape because the law did not apply to the marital rape of a ten-year-old girl.
This compelled the British government to pass the Age of Consent Act (1891), which raised the age of consent from ten to twelve years. It made sexual intercourse with any girl below the age of twelve, with or without her consent, an offence amounting to rape. The new law applied to all communities. Though initially resented by orthodox Hindus as an intrusion in their customs, it was soon accepted by large sections of society. Independent India raised the age of consent, which is currently 18 years for girls and 21 years for boys.
Now, 134 years after the original Act, a case filed in the Supreme Court after the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case of December 2012, seeking the safety of women and girls, has become an occasion to redefine childhood and consent. This is because Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appointed as Amicus Curiae (friend of the court), has proposed lowering the age of consent from 18 to 16 years.
The role of Amicus Curiae is to assist the Court in the proper adjudication of the matter, and not introduce extraneous issues which suggest a covert agenda. At ages 16-18 years, children are still in school. This is the age to study and plan one’s future career, and not to encourage children to engage in adult relationships.
Jaising suggests that a minor’s “consent” is valid in cases of sexual activity. The case for diluting the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, rests on the argument that society has taboos around early sexual activity, that teenage sex is normal, and that teenagers’ fundamental right to joy (gratification) must be safeguarded.
The argument is flawed. Individual teenagers have been known to experiment with sexual intimacy, but these ‘affairs’ generally blow over, and the concerned individuals remain within the safety of their parental homes, complete their education and go on to build their lives and careers. They are not saddled with the burden of immature promiscuity. More pertinently, teenagers as a social category are not indulging in sexual activity, and need not be nudged in that direction.
The age of consent debate encompasses legal, social, and ethical concerns. The POCSO Act is an attempt to safeguard minors from potential exploitation and abuse. Reducing this threshold could undermine these protections and expose vulnerable adolescents to grave risks, such as trafficking and coercion, and undermine the constitutional mandate to protect children from exploitation. The safety and well-being of minors must prevail above all. Child rights activists believe that maintaining the age of consent at 18 years is essential to prevent child marriage, grooming, coercion, and exploitation. The POCSO Act aligns with the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA), and India’s obligations under the Constitution and international conventions like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Lowering the age of consent would enable predators to claim grooming, coercion, or abuse as “consensual” relationships, especially where there is a power imbalance involving adults or individuals in positions of trust (relatives, teachers). This would violate Articles 14, 21, and 39(f) of the Constitution, which mandate equal protection, dignity, and safeguards against exploitation for children.
India is still grappling with a pre-Independence legacy of child marriage; as many as 23 per cent of women aged 20-24 were married before 18 years of age, according to the National Family Health Survey-5 (2019-21). Authorities assert that persistent gender inequalities make any reduction in the age of consent extremely dangerous. It could normalize early sexual activity, increase teenage pregnancies, undermine the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), health risks such as maternal mortality and compromised child development. Not to mention legitimacy issues for the children born from such unions. These dangers are universal, and the high teenage birth rates in Romania (34 per 1,000) and Bulgaria (37 per 1,000) where consent ages are lower, illustrate these perils.
There are genuine concerns that at times teenage boys are implicated in POCSO cases for a consensual relationship with fellow students. The solution is not to reduce the age of consent, but to review such cases with maturity via trained counsellors. Thereafter, if the act is deemed to be consensual, the matter should end without punitive action against either party. However, if it is concluded that the act was under duress, the under-18-year-old male partner(s) should be tried under the Juvenile Act and not under POCSO. Indeed, this provision already exists in law, but has not been implemented. It is time to fix these lacunas, rather than compound the problem by diluting the law.
From November 12, 2025, the Supreme Court will hold non-stop hearings on 11 counter-petitions on the proposed dilution of the POSCO Act. The intervenors include social activists Swati Goel Sharma and Sanjeev Nevar of the Sewa Nyaya Utthan Foundation, senior journalist Uday Mahurkar and advocate Vishnu Jain.
The sexualisation of minors threatens civilisational norms – our spiritual preceptors advocated celibacy throughout one’s educational years, no matter how long this may be – and India must protect the children in these formative years. Sewa Nyaya Utthan and Network4Justice conducted a study titled, Intrustion on Civilization: Lowering the Age of Consent – Analysing its Impact, to emphasize that the protection of minors is non-negotiable.
Concerned citizens observe that the agenda to sexualise teenagers was promoted by UNICEF India and some foreign-funded NGOs. In 2022, an Indian child rights body, Enfold, received funds from UNICEF and UNFPA and published a study recommending that the (1) Legal age of sex for girls be lowered to 16 years, and (2) “Comprehensive sexuality education” be introduced in schools. However, after strong objections from Priyank Kanoongo, then chairman of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), the UNICEF withdrew the research from the public domain and publicly acknowledged that it needed “review”.
The question legitimately arises why global bodies like UNICEF and UNFPA are so keen to alter the sexual boundaries of Indian children. The obvious danger from sexualising minors in the name of “education” and “consent” is freeing predators from child protection laws. The ruse of “consent” will pave the way for grooming gangs (a danger plaguing some western societies), inflict serious psychological damage on youth in their tender years, and erode parental authority (as in western societies where parents are not allowed to protect their children from being groomed to change their sexual identities).
The National Crime Records Bureau recorded 1.6 lakh crimes against children in 2022, many under POCSO, and a study by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, 2007, found that 53 per cent of the children in the survey had suffered sexual abuse. It is well-known that abuse is under-reported due to stigma and fear, and this is true all over the world. Weakening protections would only exacerbate these crimes and deny justice to vulnerable minors, especially those from marginalized communities.
To conclude on a note of caution, neither hormonal contraceptives nor abortions are the answer to unwanted teen pregnancies. A study in Denmark linked hormonal contraceptives with the increased use of antidepressants and depression diagnoses, especially among adolescents. Another study (475,802 females) found heightened risks of suicide attempts and suicides post-HC usage, particularly among adolescents. The use of adolescent oral contraceptives is linked to a higher risk of major depression in adulthood. Nor is abortion without risks. Unsafe abortions are a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality globally.
Add comment