LI Network
Published on: 28 July, 2025 18:52 IST
The primary objective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, is to safeguard children from sexual abuse. However, in recent years, courts across the country and rights activists have raised concerns about certain unintended consequences of the law. Specifically, adolescents aged between 15 and 18 years, engaged in voluntary, consensual relationships, have often faced prosecution under POCSO, prompting calls for reevaluation
In this context, senior advocate Indira Jaising’s written submission to the Supreme Court, advocating that consensual sex between teenagers aged 16 to 18 should not be criminalized, is a significant development. Appointed as amicus curiae, her submissions form part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena. Jaising challenged the designation of 18 years as the age of consent, arguing that the law should recognize consensual sex between adolescents aged 16—an age widely regarded as the onset of sexual maturity—and 18 as non-abusive.
She proposed that this exception be incorporated into the POCSO Act and Section 63 (sexual offences) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to Ms. Jaising, such an exception would uphold the protective intent of the law while preventing its misuse in prosecuting consensual adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature.
Contrastingly, a 2023 report by the Law Commission recommended against lowering the age of consent, suggesting instead that courts exercise “guided judicial discretion” when sentencing cases involving consensual relationships between children aged 16 and 18.
Currently, under the POCSO Act and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and BNS, anyone committing penetrative sexual assault on a child—defined as anyone under 18 years—faces stringent penalties under Section 6 of POCSO, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and relevant IPC and BNS provisions. This means that the consent of a 16-year-old is legally immaterial under Section 2(d) of POCSO.
However, safeguards are necessary to ensure the law’s original protective intent is not compromised. For instance, the Madras High Court, in the 2021 case Vijayalakshmi vs State, recommended that the age difference in consensual relationships should not exceed five years, preventing exploitation of younger individuals by significantly older partners.
Additionally, educating adolescents about sexual offences laws and their consequences is crucial. Criminalizing normal adolescent behavior is not an effective way to protect against truly non-consensual and exploitative sexual offenses.