Age of Consent and Adolescent Autonomy | 13 Jan 2026

Source: TH 

Why in News? 

In State of Uttar Pradesh versus Anurudh & Anr. (2026), the Supreme Court of India flagged the rising use of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012 in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships.  

• Noting that a law meant to protect children from sexual abuse is often invoked by families against young couples when one partner is under 18, the Court urged the Union government to consider corrective measures.  
• This observation has revived the long-standing debate on whether India should reconsider the age of consent.

What Does “Age of Consent” Mean under Indian Law? 

• Age of Consent: It is the legally fixed age at which a person is considered capable of consenting to sexual activity. In India, this age is 18 years, under the gender-neutral POCSO Act, 2012. 
  • Anyone below 18 is legally treated as a “child”, and their consent has no legal validity. Sexual activity with a minor is automatically classified as statutory rape, regardless of willingness. 
  • Section 19 of POCSO Act, 2012  makes reporting mandatory for anyone who knows or even suspects an offence. 
• Legal Evolution:  In India age of consent was originally fixed at 10 years under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 then raised to 12 by the Age of Consent Act, 1891, and subsequently increased to 14 and later 16.  
  • In 2012, the POCSO Act raised the age of consent to 18 years, and this position was reinforced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which aligned the IPC’s rape provisions with the POCSO framework. 
  • This standard has been retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where Section 63 defines rape to include sexual acts with or without consent if the woman is below 18 years of age. 
  • Notably, the age of consent is distinct from the minimum age of marriage, which remains 18 years for women and 21 years for men under Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 
• Judicial Views:  
  • State v. Hitesh (2025), Delhi High Court: The Court held that the law should recognise consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and respect their autonomy, provided such relationships are free from coercion, exploitation, or abuse. 
    • It emphasised the need for legal and societal approaches to evolve in line with adolescent realities. 
  • Ashik Ramjaii Ansari v. State of Maharashtra (2023), Bombay High Court: The Court ruled that sexual autonomy includes both the right to engage in consensual sexual activity and the right to protection from sexual aggression, and that recognising both is essential to uphold human dignity. 
  • Mohd. Rafayat Ali v. State of Delhi, Delhi High Court (2025): The Court reaffirmed that under the POCSO Act, consent is legally irrelevant if the victim is below 18 years, and any sexual act with a minor constitutes an offence irrespective of willingness.

What are the Arguments Regarding the Lowering the Age of Consent? 

Arguments in Favour 

• Recognition of Adolescent Autonomy: Adolescents aged 16–18 are increasingly capable of making informed choices about relationships due to greater access to education, awareness of rights, exposure to digital information, and improved cognitive maturity, yet the current law overlooks their evolving capacity for consent. 
  • Fourth National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) shows that 39% of Indian girls had their first sexual experience before 18, while Enfold and Project 39A studies (2016–20) found that about one-fourth of POCSO cases involved consensual adolescent relationships, making the law out of sync with ground realities. 
• Misuse of POCSO in Consensual Relationships: A significant number of POCSO cases involve consensual romantic relationships between teenagers, often triggered by parental disapproval rather than sexual exploitation. 
  • The blanket 18-year threshold turns consensual intimacy into statutory rape, leading to arrest, incarceration, and long trials that harm both the boy and the girl. 
• International practices: Many countries set the age of consent at 16 and provide “close-in-age” exemptions to avoid criminalising peers in consensual relationships. 
• Shift towards Education Rather than Punishment: Supporters argue that comprehensive sex education and awareness are more effective than criminal law in ensuring safe adolescent behaviour. 
• Need for a Nuanced Legal Approach: Advocates suggest recognising consent for those above 16 while retaining safeguards against coercion, exploitation, or abuse of authority.
  

Arguments Against 

• Protection of Children from Exploitation: Lowering the age risks weakening safeguards against sexual abuse, trafficking, and coercion, particularly in a society with deep power imbalances. 
• Consent May be Illusory: A 2007 study by the Ministry of Women and Child Development found over 50% of abusers were known to the child (family members, teachers, neighbours), where apparent consent may actually be the result of fear, manipulation, or dependency. 
  • A strict age threshold acts as a strong deterrent against adult predators who may otherwise exploit minors under the guise of consent. 
• Risk of Silencing Victims: Diluting the POCSO could discourage reporting and legitimise coercive behaviour, undermining child protection goals. 
• Parliamentary and Expert Opposition: Parliamentary Standing Committees (2011, 2012) opposed recognising minor consent or close-in-age exemptions. 
  • Law Commission (283rd Report, 2023) warned that lowering the age would make POCSO ineffective and weaken efforts against child marriage, prostitution, and trafficking. 
• Broader social consequences: Concerns exist that reducing the age may encourage premature sexual activity without adequate emotional maturity or social support. 

What Measures can Strengthen Child Safety and Protection While Reconsidering the Age of Consent? 

• Legislative Domain with Judicial Guidance: While any change in the age of consent lies within Parliament’s domain, the Supreme Court of India must clarify the growing interpretational divide between statutory law and High Court rulings to ensure uniform application by police and lower courts. 
• Need for a Holistic Response: Legal reform alone cannot address adolescent realities and must be supported by sex education, accessible health services, gender-sensitive policing, and family and community support, particularly for adolescent girls who often face parental opposition in matters of choice and relationships. 
• Focus on Differentiation, not Dilution: Instead of a mechanical debate over whether the age of consent should be 16 or 18, the law should be reshaped to prioritise child protection by clearly distinguishing consensual, age-appropriate peer relationships from situations involving coercion, power imbalance, or exploitation, ensuring justice without over-criminalisation. 
  • Allow consensual relationships among 16–18-year-olds within a narrow age gap, such as 3–4 years. Mandatory judicial scrutiny can help identify abuse or power imbalance. 
• Build an Empathetic Framework: The goal should be protection without over-criminalisation. A balanced approach can safeguard children while respecting adolescent autonomy and dignity. 

Conclusion 

The age of consent debate calls for balance, not extremes. The law must protect children from exploitation while avoiding the criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships through a more nuanced and empathetic approach.