In India, the question of what should be the legal age of sexual consent has remained controversial for decades, discussed extensively in both public forums and the judiciary. Currently, the law sets the age at 18, meaning anyone below this threshold is legally considered a minor and their consent is invalid in the eyes of the law. Engaging in sexual activity with such individuals is deemed statutory rape, attracting criminal charges. This legal position continues to spark debates as it directly impacts adolescent relationships and the future of young individuals involved, reported the Free Press Journal.
Government representatives and child rights organisations have strongly supported retaining the current age limit of 18, stating it is necessary for safeguarding minors. However, some groups argue for reducing the limit to 16 to reflect the reality of teenage relationships. Senior lawyer Indira Jaising, representing petitioner Nipun Saxena, told the Supreme Court that under the present law, many teenagers engaged in consensual relationships are unfairly criminalised, particularly boys. She maintained that this approach punishes genuine love among minors and may jeopardise their futures irreversibly, reported Free Press Journal.
The central government has opposed this demand. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati argued before the court that lowering the age could encourage exploitation, especially of young girls by older men. While adolescent love is not new in India, the question of whether teenagers are emotionally mature enough for physical intimacy remains contested, reported the Free Press Journal. Globally, the age of consent varies—14 in Germany and Portugal, 15 in France and Denmark, 16 in the UK and Canada, 17 in Ireland, and 18 in Turkey, Egypt, and parts of the U.S.
India’s Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, introduced in 2012, increased the age of consent from 16 to 18. The report states that critics argue that while the law aimed to protect children, it often criminalises consensual teenage relationships, especially in cases where parents disapprove of interfaith or intercaste unions. On the other hand, supporters of the current law believe that reducing the age could create loopholes for crimes like trafficking, kidnapping, or even child marriages. They say any reforms must come with strong judicial safeguards to prevent misuse, the report added.
The debate has also led to calls for uniformity in laws concerning sexual consent and marriage. “We have to consider social perception. In social perception, urban and rural lifestyles are ideologically different. If the age limit is changed, what exactly will we achieve? It should be carefully thought about, because this subject is related to society, ideology, and family," Lawyer Jai Vaidya explained, the Free Press Journal reported. He questioned why laws on consent and marriage are not aligned, stressing the importance of responsibility alongside consent.
Vaidya further argued that inconsistency in laws can create larger problems. “Social and legal aspects are intertwined; you cannot compartmentalise the issue. Everything affects other parts. Property and financial laws may not affect individuals in the long term. But when beliefs, actions, and family life are regulated by law, it has repercussions on their psychological, social, cultural, and financial life. No aspect can be segregated. Therefore, it is extremely important that the law follows a single policy,” he said, reported the Free Press Journal.
Child rights campaigners have also urged caution before changing the existing law. Activist Anuradha Sastrabuddhe told Free Press Journal, "This subject has several aspects. There should be a debate and a study of all these aspects before any decision is taken. Both physical and emotional aspects are involved in this subject. At the age of 16, hormonal changes are taking place, and there is a lack of emotional maturity and responsibility. Hence, studying all the aspects is necessary before making a decision about it."