In a recent development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has proposed that the Indian government reconsider the age of consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The court suggests a reduction from the current 18 years to 16 years, sparking renewed debate on this contentious issue.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The recommendation emerged during the hearing of a case involving a 17-year-old boy accused under the POCSO Act. The boy was charged based on a complaint from a 14-year-old girl. The defense argued that the physical relationship was consensual, leading the court to quash the FIR against the accused. The bench further urged the Centre to contemplate lowering the age of consent.
Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal of the High Court expressed concern over the current law’s impact on boys. He noted that
“With the advent of social media and widespread internet access, puberty is occurring at an earlier age. As a result, boys and girls are developing attractions that often lead to consensual physical relationships. However, the existing law treats boys involved in such relationships as criminals, which is injustice”
The age of consent in India was initially 16 years but was raised to 18 years in 2013 following the implementation of the POCSO Act. This is not the first time a court has suggested revisiting this age limit. The Madras High Court made similar recommendations in 2019 and 2022. Additionally, in 2022, Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, urged Parliament to reconsider the age of consent, highlighting the complex issues arising from cases involving consensual relationships among adolescents.
Earlier this week, a Gujarat court reluctantly sentenced a man to 20 years imprisonment under the POCSO Act for a consensual relationship with a 17-year-old girl. The court expressed its discomfort, stating that the verdict was delivered ‘with a heavy heart.’
As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how the Indian government will respond to the High Court’s recommendation. The decision could have significant implications for the country’s legal and social landscape.