Safeguarding childhood: With previous measures under the IPC, CrPC, and Juvenile Justice Act not being effective to stem growing offenses against children, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act brought a much-needed, child-focused system. It is both a deterrent to criminals and a strong protection for children—responding to the pressing need to safeguard the mind, body, and soul of India’s most precious asset: its children.

The Supreme Court’s judgement in Re: Right of Privacy of Adolescents (2025 INSC 778) has reopened discussion on the age of consent, forcing us to remind ourselves of the initial goals and moral basis of legislation aimed at safeguarding one of society’s most vulnerable groups—children irrespective of caste, social status, or economic position. Though the court styled the ruling as an “exceptional, non-precedential intervention,” it made serious orders on the State of West Bengal and the Government of India, calling on them to effect proper implementation of the POCSO Act. Among these was to give the victim shelter, medical care, and nutrition, and to open a door for her to create a more independent and secure life.

Advertisement

This has led to renewed debates around defining a child and the age of consent. The POCSO Act, which was passed in 2012 after comprehensive studies and discussions, was aimed at safeguarding children from sexual offenses in a society where child marriage is common and relationships between minors and adults are distorted by power imbalances. These dynamics cause children—particularly girls—to flee their homes by coercion or manipulation, getting them dependent upon their abusers and depriving them of a caring environment which they need for their complete growth.

Not only does the Act criminalize a broad range of sexual crimes against children, but also makes institutionalized safety measures like Special Courts for prompt trials, child-friendly justice, and rehabilitation of victims. Notably, it not only makes the perpetrators accountable, but also those who are duty-bound to protect the child and ensure the child’s rehabilitation.

Even with the Act’s thorough and forward-thinking structure, an immense controversy has arisen: Must the legal age of consent and definition of a child be reevaluated?

Classical Indian scriptures such as the Vedas and Manusmriti did not prioritize chronological age as much but instead focused on maturity and readiness. The Vedic notion of Dampati—a common householder—indicates an individual was only considered ready for marriage after both psychological maturity and physical maturity were achieved.

Marriage was not just a biological milestone but also a social and emotional obligation. Although these customs were not strictly linked to a numerical age, they reflected an analogous concern for the safety and readiness of young people—a principle that now supports contemporary child protection legislation.

Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act defines a child as any person under 18 years of age. This definition stands in contrast to the provisions under the Indian Penal Code (now revamped under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, or BNS), which provide more contextual definitions under Section 375 of the IPC and Section 63 of the BNS. Yet, whereas the IPC is a general criminal code, POCSO is a specific, targeted framework for the protection of children.

India’s contemporary age of consent of 18 was not random. It developed out of historical imperatives and reform. The Age of Consent Act of 1891, passed after the tragic death of Phulmoni Dasi, a child bride, raised the age from 10 to 12. It was subsequently increased to 14 through the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929, and eventually to 18 under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 following the Nirbhaya case. Every such reform was a reaction to actual threats to society, and each of them marked an increase in the recognition of a child’s bodily autonomy.

Across the world, similar issues have defined child protection legislation. In America, most states define the age of consent as 18. EU nations have also criminalized sexual relationship between adults and minors under 18. In Asia, nations such as Vietnam classify a minor as an individual under 18 in different legislations. India and Malaysia have their respective specific laws such as the POCSO Act (2012) and the Sexual Offences Against Children Act (SOACA, 2017) respectively, which both define a child very clearly as below 18 years.

International organizations such as the United Nations have repeated this benchmark. Both UNFPA and UNICEF define child marriage as involving any individual under the age of 18, emphasizing the fact that more than 100 million girls could be married before the age of majority in the coming decade. This tradition, while being most prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, continues in Latin America and the Caribbean as well.

The disparity of power between an adult and a child—whether in the home, the shopping center, or schoolyard—is inextricably based on age and exploitation. Perpetrators typically have positions of trust, so children are particularly susceptible to grooming and exploitation. In these contexts, there is not only an appropriate justification but even a necessary requirement for a firm and uniform age of consent. It offers a needed buffer period until young people are more capable of dealing with complicated societal and emotional relationships.

POCSO and associated legal mechanisms such as the Juvenile Justice Act and amendments to IPC were formulated after extensive deliberation for years. They seek to comprehend and neutralize the psychological reasons for such crime while being sensitive to the vulnerable condition of the victim. These laws focus not just on justice and punishment but healing and rehabilitation of the survivor as well.

Prior to POCSO, diffused provisions throughout various laws commonly did not fully cover the intricacies of crimes against children. POCSO introduced much-needed harmony, deterrence, and child-centered focus. It identifies children not as little adults, but as vulnerable human beings requiring special protection to develop into capable and secure citizens.

While societies change and legislation has to change with them, the current debate regarding the recasting of the age of consent needs to be considered warily. India’s social texture, with its specific issues of gender, caste, class, and early marriage, requires a legal bar that leans towards protection. The 22nd Law Commission of India, in its report on “The Age of Consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,” considered recent judgments and prevailing challenges such as child marriage, trafficking, and exploitation. It found that no fundamental change is presently necessary.

Discourse is crucial to legal development and democracy. But here, the discussion reaffirms—not dilutes—the necessity of safeguards in place. Maintaining the parliamentary intent of POCSO guarantees that our children, the country’s future itself, are safe while they enter their most vulnerable stages of development.

(The author is Dy. Advocate General in the Supreme Court of India for the state of Madhya Pradesh. Views are personal)