Can the State criminalise consensus acts of love between the 2 adolescents under the pretext of protection? Senior Advocate Indira Jaising’s powerful submission to the Supreme Court challenges this very question, urging the court to uphold autonomy over ‘outdated’ morality. This case has made its way to the Supreme Court of India and stirred quite a conversation. So the question here is- should teenagers between 16 and 18 years face jail for consensual relationships? Recently In the Nipun Saxena vs Union of India case, Indira Jaising has filed written submissions challenging the blanket criminalisation of consensual sex between adolescents aged 16 to 18. She argues that current law under the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 375 of the IPC criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights. Jaising says that the legal framework wrongly equates consensual relationships between adolescents with abuse, ignoring their autonomy, maturity, and capacity to consent. She reminds the court that for over 70 years, the age of consent remained at 16. It was only after the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 that it was raised to 18. There is no rational or empirical data to justify this increase. Now it is important to know her other arguments as well. According to Jaising, adolescents today attain puberty earlier and are capable of forming romantic and sexual relationships of their choice. She adds that scientific and social data, including the National Family Health Survey, show teenage sexual activity is not uncommon. She cited a 180% rise in prosecutions under POCSO involving minors aged 16-18 between 2017 and 2021. She stated most complaints are filed by parents, often against the girl’s will, in cases involving inter-caste or inter-faith relationships. Criminalising consensual sex forces young couples into hiding, marriage or legal trouble, instead of encouraging open dialogue and education. She also pointed to trends in various High Courts, where judges have disapproved of automatic prosecution of teen boys under POCSO. She argued that these courts have said on several occasions that not all sexual acts involving minors are coercive. Now, while Indira Jaising has called for reducing the age of consent from 18 to 16, the Union Government stands firmly opposed to the move. In its written submissions before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the government made its position absolutely clear. The Centre has told the Supreme Court that any suggestion to amend or dilute the age of consent by introducing exceptions, would be contrary to the original legislative intent, and open the door to child abuse, coercion, and the misuse of consent in exploitative contexts. And here’s the core of their argument, they say that the legislative framework on the age of consent, set at 18 years, is no accident. It’s a deliberate, well-considered policy designed to create what they call a “robust, non-negotiable shield” to protect all individuals below 18 from sexual exploitation. They say, this isn’t about punishing adolescents. This is about protection. The government argues that the principle of strict liability in child sexual offence cases is not a punitive weapon, but rather a protective mechanism. Now, they do acknowledge reality. Yes, some adolescents, driven by emotional curiosity or mutual attraction, do get into relationships. But the government says, let courts handle those instances individually, using discretion and sensitivity. What they firmly oppose is changing the age of consent across the board. And here’s a strong warning from their side, “any such reform would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law... and could open the floodgates to trafficking and abuse under the garb of consent.” They also note that both the Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently upheld 18 as the statutory age of consent, reaffirming it as a constitutional and legislative safeguard. So, at the heart of the case, as submitted by Senior Advocate Jaising, is the clash of legal fiction with lived reality. Adolescence is a period of transition, where the world of teenagers is navigated by an evolving capacity to reason and feel. Critics argue that to retain 18 as the absolute line, is to ignore rational data on modern puberty and autonomy. The judiciary’s challenge here is to distinguish genuine exploitation from consensual affection, to protect the vulnerable without unduly penalizing the mature, and to craft a law that reflects the nuance of human development.