The idea of reducing the minimum age of consent from 18 to 16 years in India is at the centre of legal, social and moral debates these days. Recently, a section of some social workers and legal experts argued that in the present circumstances, teenagers have become more aware and mature than before; in such a situation, the fixed limit of 18 years is unrealistic and, in many cases, it puts innocent youth in the category of criminals. But there is a strong opposition to this argument as well, in which it is being said that India’s social structure, gender inequality and mental maturity of teenagers are not like the western countries, so the impact of this change will be deep not only on the law but also on the stability of the society and the future generation, in which dealing with population growth and its problems is a different kind of crisis.
Currently, neither marriage nor sexual relations are valid before the age of 18 years.
Currently, the age of consent in India is 18 years. Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), a person below 18 years of age is considered a ‘child’ and any kind of sexual relationship with them, even if it is consensual, is a legal offence. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code also sets the minimum age of consent at 18 years in the definition of rape. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, also sets the minimum age for marriage for girls at 18 and for boys at 21 years. Thus, there is uniformity in the law that neither marriage nor sexual relations are valid before the age of 18.
Those who think that teenagers are maturing fast in the modern era. The Internet and social media have given them more information and experience than before. In many cases, teenagers have consensual relationships, but later, when the matter comes to light, a case is registered against the boy under POCSO, which can ruin his future. Therefore, there should be a provision like ‘close-in-age exemption’ in the law, in which a consensual relationship between two teenagers of 16 to 18 years is not considered a crime. In many western countries, too, the age of consent is 16 years, so India should also be flexible in this direction. But they forget that they are not considering the universal view from India’s point of view in this regard. Because today there are many more serious arguments against this opinion of theirs.
At the age of 16, emotional control, far-sightedness, and a sense of responsibility are not fully developed.
Those who are after reducing the age, it is important for them to first understand that the physical development and mental maturity of teenagers are different things. Psychological research shows that emotional control, long-term thinking and a sense of responsibility are not fully developed in 16-year-old teenagers. They make decisions impulsively and can take wrong steps under social pressure. If the age of consent is reduced, it will not only indirectly promote child marriage, but cases of sexual violence and exploitation against girls will also increase. In rural areas, this change will further limit the education and career opportunities of girls. Recently, a case of youths from Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh, which was being carried out by forming a gang, can be seen, this is the most famous example in this regard. Today, many such examples are scattered across the country.
What happened in Bhopal! Those boys were targeting minor girls. Let us assume, for a moment, that the girl also got carried away by emotions, but is it right for the boys to make videos, commit violence, take photos, and exert pressure? Currently, the POCSO Act is in force. Naturally, in this case, the girls complained about the accused, and their mobile phones are testifying that the girls were not lying. These mobile phones are revealing their photos, videos and even scenes of torture. In such a situation, the age of 18 seems to be appropriate for consensual sex. Any reduction in this would mean raising the graph of atrocities on half of the country’s population, i.e. women, to a great extent. Because then the atrocities that will happen will often be defined as mutual relations, which are currently prohibited due to the POCSO Act.
All laws like marriage, driving license, alcohol consumption and military service will have to be changed.
Apart from this, lowering the age of consent will also raise questions on the minimum age of marriage. If sexual relations are considered legal at the age of 16, then it will naturally be argued that the minimum age of marriage should also be reduced. This will weaken the law prohibiting child marriage, and decades-old efforts of social reform will be ruined. Not only this, the question of uniformity in legal age limits like voting, driving license, alcohol consumption and military service will also arise, which is also natural. Then is it possible to change all this? To what extent is it right that we give the right of sexual consent to a 16-year-old teenager, but do not give them the right to vote, drive or bear arms? Why should we not give them the right to bear arms? And if we do this, will it be right? While I remember again, many psychological researchers do not consider 16 years of age to be a mature age! Why do we forget the Indian social system and conditions while making international comparisons.
Indian social structure cannot be ignored while making international comparisons. Why do we forget this? It is possible that the age of consent in Britain is 16 years, but the structure of sex education, gender equality, policing and social security is very strong. Are these conditions present in India today? Similarly, in America, this age is 16 to 18 years in different states, but there are strict protection laws and mandatory reporting systems. In Japan, the age limit is 16 years at the national level, but in many provinces it is 18 years. In India, neither sex education is universal, nor does the police and judicial system work so sensitively and quickly that it can provide immediate protection to the minor victim. Then, how can the argument of reducing the age for sexual relations be given?
However, Indian courts have also made important comments on this issue in recent years. Many High Courts have acknowledged that POCSO is being misused in consensual teenage relationships, but the Supreme Court has not yet ordered a clear policy on this. In 2022, the Law Commission suggested considering ‘close age relaxation’, but there is a widespread opinion against reducing the minimum age of consent. This opinion is based on the fact that the purpose of the law is not only to punish, but also to protect children from sexual abuse.
Then what will happen to the burden of the additional population?
There is another serious socio-economic aspect in this debate, which is not being given enough attention. In a country like India, where population pressure is already weighing heavily on the economy, employment, education and health resources, it is natural that this pressure will increase further by reducing the minimum age of consent. Sexual relations at an early age affect not only individual life but also the collective social structure. If a child is born from such a relationship, then the child is often labeled as an immoral or an immoral relationship in the society, which will have a psychological impact on his entire life. In many parts of India, unmarried motherhood and teenage fatherhood are still considered a social stigma, and it remains a big problem even today. In such a situation, legalising relationships at the age of 16 will directly mean increasing the number of children whose childhood is spent in social rejection and mental pressure.
Reducing the age seems to have a very bad effect on the family as well as the state and the country. Along with this, this change will also have an adverse effect on the population growth of the country. Unmarried teenagers becoming parents will not only make the upbringing and education of children a challenge, but will also increase the additional burden on the government. The scope of education, health, nutrition and rehabilitation schemes will suddenly increase, while the existing system is already struggling with a lack of resources. The question is, are those who are insisting on lowering the age of consent ready to take responsibility for the upbringing and future of these children? If not, this change can not only disturb a legal framework but also the entire social and economic system. In this regard, consider this decision of the Supreme Court; although this decision is regarding the increasing number of dogs in Delhi, it seems necessary to give this example here.
The country’s top court said – If any person or organisation obstructs the capture of dogs, action will be taken against them. The court asked whether such people can bring back those who have become victims of rabies? Passing several instructions to deal with the incidents of dog bites, the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said that if any person or organisation tries to obstruct while capturing these dogs, strict action will be taken against them. A case of contempt of court will also be filed. The court asked the people who rescue stray animals, ‘All these activists working for animals, can they bring back those who have become victims of rabies?’
In fact, the same thing is being applied today to all those who are advocating for reducing the age of consent for sexual relations. The truth is that in a diverse and complex society like India, lowering the age of consent will not only be a legal reform, but it will also be a major change in the policy of social security, gender equality and mental health; it will prove to be a backwards move for India on all fronts.
It will not be wrong to say that this hasty step will not only affect the crime rate, but will also create new threats to education, health and social justice. It would be better if, instead of lowering the age of consent, investments are made in sex education, family communication and mental health of adolescents. After all, it is not practical to consider 16 years as the appropriate age for consent in India. It is not just a matter of changing the legal definition, but it will affect the entire social fabric in which issues of family, education, employment and gender justice are involved. Adolescents who will later realise their mistake will also lose the opportunity to correct themselves. Therefore, supporting this change is neither legally justified nor is it the right path for the long-term well-being of Indian society. Therefore, this debate should be stopped as soon as possible. Right now, 18 years of age is the right age.
