The Union government has opposed any move to bring down the age of consent from 18 to 16 years under child protection laws, citing the possibility of exposing adolescents to trafficking and crimes. However, the government told the Supreme Court that judicial discretion may be used to determine whether an alleged rape was in essence an outcome of adolescent romance, warranting leniency.
Citing how the age of consent, which is currently 18 years, is intended to protect minors froms sexual abuse, often by family members themselves, the government reportedly said, “Diluting age of consent or introducing exceptions in the guise of adolescent romance would not only be legally unsound but also dangerous, as it would provide a defence mechanism even to those abusers who exploit the child’s emotional dependence or silence.”
Emphasising that judicial discretion is not the same as legal dilution, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati submitted before the Court that in the miniscule cases where adolescents engage in physical intimacy out of romantic curiosity, the judiciary must be sensitive, employing leniency on a case-to-case basis.
But the government is firm in its take that the age of consent cannot be lowered to accommodate such circumstances.
The legal debate over the reduction of age of consent has been ongoing for a while now, and the government has always maintained that any departure from 18 years as the age of consent for sexual intimacy would amount to rolling back decades of child protection laws, including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.