Do you agree that lowering the age of consent would uphold adolescent autonomy without compromising child protection? Critically justify your stand.
Kartavya Desk Staff
Topic: Mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.
Topic: Mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.
Q4. Do you agree that lowering the age of consent would uphold adolescent autonomy without compromising child protection? Critically justify your stand. (15 M)
Difficulty Level: Medium
Reference: TH
Why the question: The issue has gained prominence following a Supreme Court submission by Indira Jaising in July 2025 urging the reading down of the age of consent under POCSO, sparking national debate on adolescent autonomy versus legal protection. Key Demand of the question: The question requires a critical opinion on whether lowering the age of consent upholds adolescent autonomy without weakening child protection, along with a balanced justification supported by constitutional, legal, and institutional perspectives. Structure of the Answer: Introduction: Briefly highlight the legal tension between adolescent agency and protective laws, possibly referencing the Puttaswamy judgment on privacy. Body: Justify the case for lowering the age of consent through arguments of autonomy, misuse of POCSO, constitutional rights, and global practices. Present counterarguments including risks of exploitation, gaps in sex education, institutional unpreparedness, and legal inconsistencies. Offer a balanced way forward such as introducing a close-in-age exception, strengthening judicial discretion, and expanding adolescent-friendly services. Conclusion: Suggest a nuanced, rights-based reform approach that aligns constitutional dignity with child protection objectives.
Why the question: The issue has gained prominence following a Supreme Court submission by Indira Jaising in July 2025 urging the reading down of the age of consent under POCSO, sparking national debate on adolescent autonomy versus legal protection.
Key Demand of the question: The question requires a critical opinion on whether lowering the age of consent upholds adolescent autonomy without weakening child protection, along with a balanced justification supported by constitutional, legal, and institutional perspectives.
Structure of the Answer:
Introduction: Briefly highlight the legal tension between adolescent agency and protective laws, possibly referencing the Puttaswamy judgment on privacy.
• Justify the case for lowering the age of consent through arguments of autonomy, misuse of POCSO, constitutional rights, and global practices.
• Present counterarguments including risks of exploitation, gaps in sex education, institutional unpreparedness, and legal inconsistencies.
• Offer a balanced way forward such as introducing a close-in-age exception, strengthening judicial discretion, and expanding adolescent-friendly services.
Conclusion: Suggest a nuanced, rights-based reform approach that aligns constitutional dignity with child protection objectives.