The Supreme Court will hear a case on the statutory age of consent for adolescents on November 12. The bench emphasized that the matter should be discussed continuously rather than addressed in a piecemeal manner.
The Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for November 12 regarding the statutory age of consent for adolescents, emphasizing a preference for a continuous discussion rather than addressing the issue.
The case was presented before a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria.
The bench stated,
“We would prefer if the matter starts and continues rather than having it in piecemeal,”
The court set November 12 as the date for the hearing, indicating that it would conduct the proceedings over consecutive days.
The Centre has defended the established age of consent at 18 years, characterizing this as a “deliberate, well-considered, and coherent” policy aimed at protecting minors from sexual exploitation.
In written submissions made by Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati, the Centre argued that lowering the age of consent or creating exceptions under the pretext of adolescent romance would be legally unsound and potentially harmful.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae, has called for the statutory age of consent to be lowered from 18 to 16 years.
Jaising submitted her written arguments contesting the blanket criminalization of sexual activities involving adolescents aged 16 to 18 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On Wednesday, she highlighted a scenario where individuals aged between 16 and 18 enter into consensual relationships and face prosecution.
In the case of Nipun Saxena and others v. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court addressed separate issues. Jaising noted that the Nipun Saxena case and a suo motu case regarding the evaluation of the criminal justice system’s response to sexual offenses were scheduled for concurrent hearings before the bench.
The bench remarked,
“We will deal with it as a whole. We will not segregate the issues. Let it open up, then we will see,”
The court was also informed about various intervention applications related to the matter.
Affirming that it was at the court’s discretion to decide whether to entertain them, the bench inquired,
“Can we stop lawyers from filing applications?”
The Centre reiterated the necessity of strict and uniform enforcement of the current statutory age of consent.
It stated,
“Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law and undermine the deterrent character of statutes like the POCSO Act, 2012 and the BNS.”
Furthermore, the Centre contended that judicial discretion should remain on a case-by-case basis and should not be interpreted as a general exception or diluted standard in the statute. It warned that introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would significantly weaken the statutory presumption of vulnerability central to child protection law.
A weakened law could potentially lead to increased trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the guise of consent, the Centre argued.
To uphold the legislative intent and protect the bodily integrity of children, the existing age of consent should be maintained, along with the constitutional and statutory safeguards provided to them.