SEWA NYAYA UTTHAN FOUNDATION
Service. Justice. Inclusion
Sewa Nyaya Utthan Foundation (SNU) founder Swati Goel Sharma has filed an Intervention Application before the Supreme Court in the suo motu proceedings titled In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, opposing any proposal to reduce the age of consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, from 18 years to 16 years.
The intervention has been filed in the public interest by Swati, who is a social activist, researcher and writer working on issues relating to child rights and child protection, among other issues.
Through the application, she seeks permission to assist the Court by placing legal, constitutional and child protection considerations before it in the ongoing proceedings concerning adolescent well-being, implementation of the POCSO Act and adolescent education.
The intervention contends that reducing the age of consent would defeat the very object of the POCSO Act, undermine the constitutional mandate to protect children and expose minors to a significantly greater risk of sexual exploitation.
The application notes that discussions relating to the age of consent have arisen in connected judicial and policy discourse. It submits that the existing legal framework should instead be implemented in a sensitive, reformative and child-centric manner without diluting the statutory protections available to children.
According to the intervention, the POCSO Act was enacted as a comprehensive child-friendly legislation that protects every person below the age of 18 years from sexual offences by rendering consent legally irrelevant. It submits that this framework is consistent with the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, constitutional guarantees protecting children and India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The application argues that lowering the age of consent would dilute the Act’s clear and objective statutory threshold, create ambiguity capable of being exploited by perpetrators and make it easier to portray cases involving grooming, coercion, manipulation and abuse as consensual relationships.
The intervention further submits that reducing the threshold to 16 years would substantially weaken deterrence and shift the target age of abuse downward. It warns that children aged 13–14 years would become particularly vulnerable because grooming typically targets children well below the legal threshold.
The application also argues that such a legislative change would undermine constitutional protections guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 39(f) of the Constitution by weakening safeguards intended to ensure equality, dignity and protection of children against exploitation.
Highlighting India’s socio-cultural realities, the intervention submits that factors such as child marriage, gender inequality, limited adolescent health services and unequal social power structures make any reduction in the age of consent particularly unsafe. It contends that lowering the threshold could normalise early sexual activity, increase teenage pregnancies, undermine the objectives of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and adversely affect children’s physical, emotional and psychological development.
Instead of reducing the statutory age of consent, the application submits that concerns relating to consensual adolescent relationships can be appropriately addressed within the existing legal framework. It refers to Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides for preliminary assessment in cases involving children aged 16-18 accused of heinous offences. The intervention also relies upon the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) guidelines issued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu.
The intervention additionally opposes the introduction of any “close-in-age” or “Romeo and Juliet” exception to the POCSO Act. It argues that, given the absence of universal sexual-health education, comprehensive adolescent health services and comparable enforcement infrastructure in India, such an exception would be vulnerable to misuse and could make prosecution of child marriages, grooming and sexual exploitation considerably more difficult.
In support of its submissions, the intervention places before the Supreme Court a research report titled “Intrusion on Civilization: Lowering the Age of Consent – Analysing Its Impact,” which examines the jurisprudential, constitutional and socio-cultural consequences of lowering the age of consent under the POCSO Act.
The application further informs the Court that the applicant has filed a similar intervention application in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India & Ors. on the same issue. Among the reliefs sought, the intervention requests the Supreme Court to permit Swati to intervene in the present proceedings and to tag the suo motu matter with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2012, Nipun Saxena v. Union of India & Ors., along with other connected matters concerning the age of consent under the POCSO Act.
Background
A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan recently questioned whether POCSO should be invoked to criminalise certain consensual relationships, observing that the age group of 15-18 is often one of “experimentation” and that parents frequently invoke criminal proceedings to protect family honour after their children elope.
“Sixteen-eighteen years, they develop a relationship and go away. Parents, to protect their honour, fasten criminal liability. We have to acquit,” the Bench observed.
“POCSO is sexual assault and exploitation of children. 15-18 is a vulnerable age. Age of experimentation. The question is, does it really become a POCSO case?” the Bench asked.
Origin of the Case
The suo motu case arose from a Calcutta High Court judgment that had observed adolescent girls should exercise restraint over their sexual urges rather than “giving in to two minutes of pleasure.” The Supreme Court set aside those remarks and initiated the suo motu case to examine adolescent privacy, rights and the implementation of POCSO.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing before the court, submitted that the case which prompted the proceedings involved a 14-year-old girl who had eloped with a 25-year-old man, and that the matter had since been resolved, with the girl “settled with her husband.” Divan recommended introducing adolescent education on POCSO from Class VI and a national dashboard to monitor POCSO cases; the court declined the dashboard proposal, noting that High Courts already have child rights committees in place.
