The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response on a PIL seeking decriminalisation of consensual sex between adolescents over 16 and below 18 years old, reported PTI. The plea seeks a direction to decriminalise the law on statutory rape often invoked against 16- to 18-year-old adolescents for indulging in consensual sex. On Firday, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notices to Union ministries of law and justice and the home affairs and some other statutory bodies including the National Commission for Women. The plea was filed by lawyer Harsh Vibhore Singhal in his personal capacity.


According to the report, the PIL challenges the legality of statutory rape laws that criminalise consensual sex between adolescents who are above 16 years and below 18 years of age on the ground that their consent to such acts is statutorily invalid.


"Pass a writ of mandamus under Article 32 or any other direction in the nature of writ and exercise its powers under 142 to decriminalise the law of statutory rape as applied to all cases of voluntary consensual sexual contact between any 16+ to <18 adolescent with another similar age adolescent and with >18 adult...," the plea said, as per PTI.


The plea further states that such adolescents possess "physiological, biological, psychological and social capacities, competence to assimilate and evaluate information to understand and comprehend risks, freedom to make informed choices to convey affirmative decisions or otherwise, and have the agency and decisional/bodily autonomy to fearlessly, freely and voluntarily do what they wish to do with their bodies."


Earlier in July, the Bombay High Court observed that the age of consent for sex under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) should be re-examined, reported Bar and Bench. The bench added that a large number of cases coming before courts involve minor girls below 18 years who have had consensual sex in romantic relationships. 


"The mere apprehension that adolescents would make an impulsive and bad decision, cannot classify them under one...," the court noted, as quote by Live Law.


ALSO READ | No More 'Career Woman', 'Chaste Woman', 'Ladylike', 'Dutiful': SC Handbook Combats Sexism In Legal Language