‘Shields minors’: Centre defends statutory age of 18 yrs for consent in SC

The Centre has defended in the Supreme Court the statutory age of consent of 18 years, saying the decision was a “deliberate, well-considered, and coherent” policy choice aimed at shielding minors from sexual exploitation.
The Centre, in its written submissions through Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati, argued diluting the age of consent or introducing exceptions under the guise of adolescent romance would be not only legally unsound but also dangerous.
The government said it would provide a defence mechanism even to those abusers who exploit a child’s emotional dependence or silence. The Centre further said the existing statutory age of consent must be strictly and uniformly enforced. “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 (the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 and the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).”
Moreover, the Centre argued that the discretion on case-to-case basis must remain judicial and must not be read into the statute as a general exception or a diluted standard. “Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law. A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent,” it said.
Lowering the age of consent, the Centre said, would open the “floodgates” to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent.
The case before the top court raises the point of age in adolescent relationships.
“The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at eighteen (18) years, and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered, and coherent statutory policy,” the Centre said.
The law does not treat the age limit as arbitrary and rather, it reflects a constitutional and legislative recognition of a minor’s vulnerability, especially in a socio-economic context marked by deep inequalities and power imbalances, it added. A child’s inability to report or resist is exacerbated when the perpetrator is a parent or close family member, it said, adding in such cases, presenting “consent” as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of POCSO to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were “willing”.
The existing age of consent ought to be retained in order to give full effect to the legislative intent, protect the bodily integrity of children, and uphold the constitutional and statutory safeguards accorded to them, it said.
“The Supreme Court along with high courts across the country have always maintained the sanctity of legal age of consent as 18 years of age. This statutory yardstick has been upheld on numerous occasions, keeping in view the legislative intent and the pre-eminent constitutional mandate of protecting young children,” it said.
Earlier, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising had urged the bench to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years.
Jaising, who is assisting the top court in the case, then said the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights.