Should the Age of Consent be Lowered - The POCSO Debate

Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

On January 10, 2026, the Supreme Court (SC), in its judgment in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anuradha & Anr., acknowledged the growing misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 in consensual, romantic adolescent relationships, where one party is a minor. It urged the Union government to initiate legislative review to exempt genuine adolescent relationships from the special child protection law's rigorous application. This has revived the debate on the "age of consent." 

• The age of consent refers to the legally defined age at which an individual can consent to sexual activity.  
• In India, it is currently 18 years, as established by the gender-neutral POCSO Act. Anyone below this age is deemed incapable of providing their consent to sexual acts legally.  
• Consequently, sexual acts with minors are treated as "statutory rape," based on the legal presumption that children lack the capacity to give valid consent. 
• Section 19 of the POCSO Act mandates that anyone who is aware of or has knowledge of an offense under the Act, whether likely to occur or already committed, must report it to the local police or the Special Juvenile Police Unit. 

The Legal Framework 

• This definition has been firmly cemented in the broader criminal law framework by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.  
• This Act notably amended, among others, Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines "rape" and, until 2012, had set the age of consent at 16. Post-2013 amendments, aimed at strengthening laws related to sexual offenses against women, aligned IPC's Section 375 with the 18-year age stipulated in POCSO, thereby creating a uniform legal framework against child sexual abuse. 
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, retained this position: Section 63 defines rape to include sexual acts with or without consent if the woman is under 18. 
• Historically, India's age of consent has fluctuated: it was raised from 10 years under the 1860 IPC to 12 (Age of Consent Act, 1891), then 14, and subsequently 16 until POCSO raised it to 18 in 2012.  
• Importantly, the age of consent is distinct from the "minimum age of marriage", which under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, is 18 for females and 21 for males. 

What is the Debate About? 

• In recent years, the debate over the age of consent has intensified, particularly due to a surge in POCSO cases involving adolescents aged 16-18, where the girl often testifies to "consensual sex." 
• Advocates for lowering the age of consent argue that the current law fails to recognize adolescent sexuality, infringing upon their autonomy and treating them as incapable of giving mature consent.  
• Underscoring the POCSO Act's intent, they emphasize that it was designed to prevent child sexual abuse, not to criminalize consensual romantic relationships among older adolescents. 
• Reflecting the ground realities of adolescent sexual behavior, the NFHS-4 (2015-16) shows that 11% of girls had their first sexual experience before age 15, and 39% before 18. An Enfold study analyzing 2,764 POCSO judgments (2016-2020) across Assam, Maharashtra, and West Bengal found that 24.3% of them involved romantic relationships, with 82% of defendants being known and close to testify against the accused.  
• Another Enfold Project 39A study of 264 cases under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of POCSO in the same States found that 25.4% of them involved consensual relationships. 

Judicial Perspectives 

Supreme Court Observations: 

• The January 10, 2026 Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anuradha & Anr. acknowledged the misuse of POCSO in consensual adolescent relationships and urged legislative review. 
• Notably, on August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned a controversial Calcutta HC ruling that acquitted a man in a POCSO case involving a 14-year-old girl, reaffirming that POCSO does not recognise "consensual sex" with minors. Yet, later invoking Article 142 (extraordinary jurisdiction), the top court declined to impose a sentence despite conviction, noting the girl did not view the incident as a crime and had suffered due to prolonged custody. It criticised itself, but it also stated that the judgment should not be treated as precedent. 
• More recently, on August 19, 2025, in a hearing of a case at the SC, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned whether relationships between persons on the verge of majority age should be seen differently: "Look at the trauma the girl underwent. [She loves a boy and he is sent to jail, because her parents would file a POCSO case to cover the elopement", Justice Nagarathna observed. 

High Court Observations: 

• The Bombay HC in Adsit Ramjait Ansari v. State of Maharashtra (2023) held that sexual autonomy includes both the "right from sexual aggression" and the "right to protection from sexual aggression" and that recognising both is key to respecting human sexual dignity. 
• However, in Mohd. Rafiqul Ali v. State of Delhi, the Delhi HC, asserted that "consent is legally immaterial" under POCSO when the victim is a minor.

International Comparisons 

• Advocates propose a more incremental approach, one that respects the consent of those over 16 while ensuring safeguards against coercion, exploitation, or abuse of authority.  
• They call for shifting the conversation toward education, open dialogue around sex education, relationships, and consent, rather than blanket criminalization, which often leads to misuse.  
• In many Western democracies, the consent age is 16, with safeguards against coercion and abuse. Countries like Germany, Italy, and Portugal recognise "close-in-age" exemptions or the "Romeo-Juliet clause", ensuring that teenagers in consensual relationships with slightly older peers are not criminalised. 

Concerns Against Lowering the Age 

• However, there are genuine concerns on maintaining the age of consent. Many believe that such a move would risk weakening the deterrent framework, enabling trafficking and exploitation to find refuge under the guise of consent. 
• The current "bright line rule" – which treats all individuals under 18 as incapable of consenting to sexual activity – reflects a clear legislative intent to create an unambiguous zone of protection for children against sexual exploitation. This rule avoids subjective judgments by replacing them with an objective, consistent standard. 
• Individuals against reducing the age of consent acknowledge that proposals for "close-in-age exemptions" or "judicial discretion" in isolated cases involving consensual adolescent relationships, but they caution against codifying such exceptions in law. 
• More worryingly, child exploitation often occurs by individuals in positions of trust, such as family members, neighbours, teachers, and caregivers; a 2007 study by the Ministry of Women and Child Development found that over 50% of children who faced sexual abuse. In such cases, children often lack the emotional independence or capacity to resist or report abuse, making any claim of consent meaningless. Diluting the law would legitimise coercion, suppress disclosures, and contradict the legislative intent of POCSO, which is to protecting children's best interests. 
• Lowering the age would also risk encouraging younger children to engage in sexual activity prematurely, without the emotional maturity to comprehend its ramifications. 

Parliamentary and Legal Commission Position 

• Parliament has consistently rejected proposals to lower the age of consent.  
• The Justice Verma Committee had recommended keeping it at 16 under IPC Section 375, but Parliament chose to raise it to 18 under the POCSO legislative framework. The 240th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development (2011) rejected recognising minor consent in the POCSO bill, stating that willingness or maturity was legally irrelevant. Similarly, the Rajya Sabha Department-Related Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2012) supported raising the age to 18 and opposed any "close-in-age" exemption. 
• Most recently, the Law Commission of India (2024) also explicitly warned that reducing the age of consent would render POCSO a "paper law" undermining efforts to combat child marriage, prostitution, and trafficking. 

Court Rulings on Adolescent Relationships 

• Time and again, courts have faced the tough task of upholding the letter of the law while recognising that its application, in some cases, can inflict real harm on those it seeks to protect. In State v. R.K. (2020), the Madras High Court held that "…societal and legal views on adolescent love should emphasise the rights of young individuals to engage in romantic relationships that are free from exploitation and abuse.  
• The law should evolve to acknowledge and respect these relationships, as long as they are consensual and free from coercion." 

The Road Ahead 

While reducing the age of consent is within the jurisdiction of Parliament, the judiciary can offer guidance on this interpretational divide between the statutory framework and life rulings, ensuring consistency for investigating agencies and lower courts alike. Moreover, laws alone cannot address the layered and complex realities of adolescent sexuality. Instead, we need a holistic approach with access to comprehensive sex education, respect for young people's autonomy, accessible sexual and reproductive health services, contextual application of legal enforcement, and, above all, a social ecosystem that supports adolescents, especially girls, when they find themselves at odds with their families. 

Instead of a blanket reduction that could open doors to predators disguising coercion as consent, we need a pragmatic middle path: maintaining 18 but with exemptions for 16-18-year-olds, say within a 3-4-year gap, coupled with mandatory judicial reviews to sniff out any foul play, while ramping up school programs on bodily autonomy, consent, and emotional resilience. This way, we honour adolescent autonomy without gutting protections, and build a framework where kids learn to navigate love safely, reducing misuse of the law and fostering a more empathetic society.