heyn On January 10, the Supreme Court (SC) in its decision State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anurudh and Ors.Acknowledged the growing misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO), 2012 in consensual teenage romantic relationships where one party is a minor. It urged the Central Government to introduce corrective measures to exempt genuine juvenile relationships from the stringent application of the Special Child Protection Law. This has reignited the debate on ‘age of consent’.
legal framework
The age of consent refers to the legally defined age at which a person can consent to sexual activity. In India, established by the gender-neutral POCSO Act, it is currently 18 years. Anyone younger than this age is classified as a “child”, making their consent to sexual acts legally irrelevant. As a result, sexual acts with minors are considered “statutory rape”, based on the legal presumption that children do not have the capacity to give valid consent. Section 19 of the POCSO Act states that any person who suspects or has knowledge of the commission of an offense under the Act, whether likely to be committed or has already been committed, must report the same to the local police or the Special Juvenile Police Unit.
The 18-year limit was firmly strengthened in the broader criminal law framework by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. The Act, among other things, specifically amended Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines ‘rape’ and, until 2012, set the ‘age of consent’ at 16 years. The amendments aimed at strengthening laws relating to sexual offenses against women aligned Section 375 of the IPC with the age limit of 18 years set in POCSO, thereby ensuring comprehensive protection against child sexual exploitation. The Indian Code of Justice (BNS), 2023 retained this position: Section 63 defines rape as including sexual act committed by a woman with or without her consent if the woman is below 18 years of age.
Historically, India’s age of consent has changed significantly – from 10 years under the 1860 IPC to 12 (Age of Consent Act, 1891), then 14, and later 16 until POCSO raised it to 18 in 2012. Importantly, the age of consent is different from the ‘minimum age of marriage’, which is 18 years for women and 21 years for men under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
arguments in favor
In recent years, the debate on the age of consent has intensified, particularly due to the increase in POCSO cases involving teenagers aged 16–18 years, where the girl often testifies to ‘consensual sex’. Advocates of lowering the age of consent argue that current laws fail to recognize adolescent sexuality, thereby violating the autonomy of 16–18-year-olds capable of giving mature consent. Outlining the intent of the POCSO Act, they emphasize that it was designed to prevent child sexual abuse, not to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between older teenagers.
Reflecting the ground reality of ‘adolescent sexual behaviour’, NFHS-4 (2015-16) shows that 11% girls had their first sexual experience before the age of 15 years and 39% before the age of 18 years. An Enfold study analyzing 7,064 POCSO judgments (2016-2020) in Assam, Maharashtra and West Bengal found that 24.3% of them involved romantic relationships, 82% of which involved victims. In such cases, there is a refusal to testify against the accused. Another Enfold-Project 39A study of 264 cases under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual harassment) of POCSO in the same states found that 25.4% of them involved consensual sex. Therefore, many advocate a more nuanced legal approach, which respects the consent of people over the age of 16 while ensuring safeguards against coercion, exploitation or abuse of authority. They call for the conversation to move towards informed, open conversations about sex education, relationships and consent, rather than criminalisation, which often leads to abuse. In many Western democracies, the age of consent is 16, with safeguards against coercion and abuse. Countries such as the UK, Canada and many of the European Union recognize ‘close to age’ exemptions or ‘Romeo-Juliet clauses’, ensuring that teenagers who have consensual relationships with slightly older peers are not criminalized.
challenge
However, there are real concerns over lowering the age of consent. Many believe that such a move would risk weakening preventive frameworks, encouraging trafficking and other forms of child exploitation under the guise of consent. The current “bright-line rule” – which treats all persons under the age of 18 as incapable of consenting to sexual activity – reflects the clear legislative intention to create a clear zone of protection for minors under the POCSO Act and BNS. This rule avoids subjective decisions by replacing them with an objective, consistent standard. Those against lowering the age of consent acknowledge that courts can exercise “guided judicial discretion” in individual cases involving consensual teenage relationships, but they caution against codifying such exceptions into law.
More worryingly, child abuse is often perpetrated by individuals in positions of trust, such as family members, neighbours, teachers and caregivers; A 2007 study by the Ministry of Women and Child Development found that more than 50% of abusers were known to the child. In such cases, children often lack emotional independence or the ability to protest or report the abuse, making any claims of consent meaningless. Weakening the law would legitimize coercion, suppress disclosures, and contradict the constitutional and statutory commitment to protect the best interests of children. Lowering the age would also risk encouraging young children to engage in sexual activity prematurely, without having the emotional maturity to understand its implications.
Parliament has consistently rejected proposals to lower the age of consent. The Justice Verma Committee had recommended keeping it at 16 under Section 375 of the IPC, but Parliament decided to increase it to 18 in 2013, in line with the POCSO framework. The 240th Report (2011) of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development rejected the recognition of minor consent in the POCSO Bill, saying that willingness or maturity is legally irrelevant. Similarly, the 167th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2012) supported raising the age to 18 years and opposed any ‘near age’ relaxation. Recently, the Law Commission’s 283rd report (2023) on the age of consent warned that lowering the age of consent would make POCSO a “paper law”, which would undermine efforts to combat child marriage, prostitution and trafficking.
legal opinion
Time and again, courts have faced the difficult task of upholding the letter of the law while recognizing that its application may, in some cases, cause real harm to those it purports to protect. In State vs Hitesh (2025), the Delhi High Court (HC) held that “…social and legal views on teenage love should emphasize the rights of young persons to engage in romantic relationships that are free from exploitation and abuse….The law should evolve to accept and respect these relationships, as long as they are consensual and free from coercion.” Similarly, in Bombay HC Ashiq Ramzai Ansari vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) recognized that sexual autonomy includes both the ‘right to engage’ in consensual activity and the ‘right to safety’ from sexual aggression, and recognizing both is important to respect human sexual dignity.
However, in Mo. Rafayat Ali vs State of DelhiDelhi HC stressed that “consent is legally meaningless” under POCSO if the victim is below 18 years of age. Most notably, on August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned a controversial decision of the Calcutta HC acquitting a man in a POCSO case involving a 14-year-old girl, and reaffirmed that POCSO does not recognize ‘consensual sex’ with minors. Nevertheless, later using Article 142 (extraordinary jurisdiction), the apex court refused to impose punishment despite the conviction, noting that the girl did not view the incident as a crime and suffered more from the legal process than from the act itself, but also said that the verdict should not be considered a precedent.
Recently, on August 19, 2025, while hearing a case in the Supreme Court, Justice BV Nagarathna said that romantic relationships between individuals on the verge of adulthood should be viewed differently. Justice Nagarathna said, “Look at the trauma if a girl loves a boy and he is sent to jail, because her parents will file a POCSO case to cover up the escape.”
the way forward
While lowering the age of consent is within the jurisdiction of Parliament, the Supreme Court should step in to clarify the growing interpretive divide between the statutory framework and High Court decisions, thereby ensuring consistency for investigating agencies and lower courts alike. Furthermore, laws alone cannot address the layered and complex realities of adolescent life. To have real impact, we need access to comprehensive sex education, respect for young people’s autonomy, accessible sexual and reproductive health services, gender-sensitive and responsive law enforcement, and above all, a social ecosystem that supports adolescents, especially girls, when they find themselves separated from their families.
Data from studies like Enfold’s paint a clear picture – there are far too many cases arising from consensual romance, which are often weaponized by disapproving parents, clogging up the courts and undermining trust in the system without addressing core issues like poor sex education or cultural taboos around dating. The real challenge involves not just analyzing whether the age of consent should remain at 18 or be raised to 16, but how the law can be recalibrated to separate genuine teenage relationships from exploitative relationships. Wholesale cuts risk weakening child protections, yet the current blanket rule unfairly criminalizes young people navigating consensual intimacy.
Instead of a sweeping cut that could open the door to predators who coerce consent, we need a pragmatic change: introduce ‘closer to age’ relaxation for 16-18 year olds, let’s say within a 3-4 year span, coupled with mandatory judicial review to prevent any foul play, sharpening school programs on healthy relationships, consent and emotional resilience. In this way, we respect the autonomy of adolescents without eliminating protections, and create a framework where children learn to love safely, reducing abuses of the law and fostering a more empathetic society.
Kartikeya Singh is a lawyer based in New Delhi.
