India’s Supreme Court has scheduled November 12 for an important hearing concerning the statutory age of consent for adolescents. The court, presided over by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria, expressed a preference for continuous proceedings rather than a piecemeal approach to this sensitive issue.
The central government has staunchly defended the existing statutory age of consent of 18 years, affirming it as a “deliberate, well-considered, and coherent” policy decision. Through Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati’s written submissions, the Centre contended that any move to lower the age of consent or create exceptions for “adolescent romance” would be legally perilous and undermine existing protections.
Conversely, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, acting as an amicus curiae to the Supreme Court, has advocated for reducing the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Her written submissions challenge the broad criminalization of sexual activity involving adolescents between 16 and 18 years under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, and Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Advocate Jaising highlighted scenarios where individuals aged 16 to 18 face prosecution despite engaging in consensual relationships. She noted that the “Nipun Saxena and others v. Union of India and others” case, alongside a separate suo motu case addressing the criminal justice system’s response to sexual offenses, have been slated for a combined hearing. The Bench confirmed this unified approach, stating, “We will deal with it as a whole. We will not segregate the issues. Let it open up, then we will see.”
The court also acknowledged the various intervention applications filed in the matter, with the Bench remarking on the Supreme Court’s sole discretion in entertaining such requests.
The Centre reiterated its firm stance that the current statutory age of consent must be strictly and uniformly upheld. It argued that any deviation from this standard, even under the guise of reform or promoting adolescent autonomy, would effectively reverse years of advancement in child protection laws and weaken the deterrent effect of crucial statutes like the POCSO Act, 2012, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Furthermore, the government maintained that judicial discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis, rather than enshrining general exceptions or diluted standards directly into law. It warned that implementing a legislative “close-in-age” exception or reducing the age of consent would significantly undermine the fundamental principle of presumed vulnerability in child protection. Such a weakened legal framework, the Centre cautioned, could inadvertently pave the way for increased child trafficking and other forms of abuse disguised as consensual acts.
The Centre concluded by asserting that retaining the current age of consent is essential to fully realize legislative intent, safeguard the bodily integrity of children, and maintain the constitutional and statutory protections in place for them.