Intervenor Tells Supreme Court Lowering POCSO Age of Consent to 16 Would Increase Child Exploitation Risks
The debate over India’s statutory age of consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has intensified before the Supreme Court, with an intervenor (IA) strongly opposing proposals to reduce the age of consent from 18 to 16 years. The intervenor argued that any such reduction would expose adolescents—particularly girls—to greater risks of sexual exploitation, coercion and trafficking, while weakening the protective framework established under the POCSO Act. The submissions were made during the hearing of petitions seeking reforms to the law governing consensual adolescent relationships.
The intervention came in response to suggestions placed before the Court by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who has advocated reconsidering the current legal framework. She has argued that the existing law often criminalises consensual relationships between adolescents aged 16 to 18 years, resulting in prosecutions initiated at the instance of disapproving parents rather than in cases of genuine sexual abuse. The plea urges the Court to adopt a more nuanced approach that distinguishes consensual teenage relationships from exploitative offences.
Opposing this proposal, the intervenor submitted that reducing the age of consent would dilute statutory safeguards for minors and make it easier for offenders to claim that a 16- or 17-year-old had voluntarily consented to sexual activity. According to the submissions, adolescents remain particularly vulnerable to emotional manipulation, grooming and unequal power dynamics, making the present threshold of 18 years an essential legal safeguard against abuse and exploitation.
The Union Government has also defended the existing legal position before the Supreme Court. In its written submissions, the Centre maintained that fixing the age of consent at 18 years is a deliberate legislative policy aimed at protecting children from sexual exploitation. It argued that lowering the age or creating broad exceptions could reintroduce the very mischief that Parliament intended to eliminate through the enactment of the POCSO Act. At the same time, the Government indicated that courts may continue to exercise judicial discretion in appropriate cases involving consensual adolescent relationships while preserving the statutory age of consent.
During earlier hearings, however, the Supreme Court itself expressed concern over the growing number of cases where consensual relationships between teenagers are prosecuted under POCSO after complaints by parents. The Court observed that the 15–18 age group is often a period of emotional and psychological experimentation and suggested that Parliament may consider introducing a limited “Romeo and Juliet” exception for genuine consensual relationships between adolescents close in age, instead of lowering the statutory age of consent altogether.
The proceedings have therefore brought two competing concerns into sharp focus. On one hand, child rights advocates and the intervenor argue that retaining the age of consent at 18 is crucial to preventing exploitation, trafficking and coercion of minors. On the other hand, reform proponents contend that the current framework often criminalises consensual adolescent relationships and leads to the misuse of the POCSO Act in family-driven prosecutions rather than cases involving actual sexual abuse.
The Supreme Court has not yet delivered a final verdict on the issue. Its eventual decision—or any recommendation to Parliament—could significantly influence the future interpretation of the POCSO Act, particularly on whether the law should continue treating all persons below 18 years as incapable of legally consenting to sexual activity or incorporate narrowly tailored safeguards for consensual relationships between adolescents without compromising child protection.
