Teen sex: Love or crime? Legal reform should not enable predators

RAGHAVENDRA KUMAR

As the debate over lowering the age of sexual consent from 18 to 16 years gathers momentum, it is critical to pause and evaluate the issue not just from a legal or romantic lens, but through the prism of child and adolescent development, mental health, and long-term well-being. The guiding principle must always remain the “Best Interest of the Child”, as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which India is a signatory.

Consent vs. Capacity: A Developmental Mismatch

While the physical appearance of maturity in adolescents may be misleading, neuroscience clearly demonstrates that the adolescent brain continues to develop well into the early twenties – especially areas responsible for impulse control, risk assessment, and emotional regulation. Legal consent assumes not only willingness but the capacity to understand consequences, resist coercion, and assess risks – capacities that are still under construction in many teenagers.

Lowering the age of consent involves the risks of overestimating adolescent decision-making capacity, especially in emotionally charged or asymmetrical relationships. Consent must not be reduced to a checkbox or a technicality. It must reflect true autonomy, which many adolescents have not yet developmentally attained.

Protection vs Criminalisation: A False Binary

It is important to acknowledge that the current legal framework under the POCSO Act has occasionally led to the criminalisation of non-exploitative relationships between adolescents. However, this must not prompt a wholesale lowering of the age threshold. Instead, greater judicial discretion and contextual interpretation can be employed in such cases – particularly, when both parties are close in age and no coercion, manipulation, or exploitation is evident.

Dr Raghavendra Kumar

What must not be compromised is the law’s core protective intent. POCSO was designed to act as a safeguard against child sexual abuse, especially in a country where a majority of perpetrators are known to the child and where systemic redress is difficult. Any dilution of the Act must not come at the cost of weakening its shield against predatory behaviour.

Grooming, Power Imbalance, and Risk Amplification

Adolescents are highly susceptible to grooming – a gradual process where an older individual gains trust with the intent to manipulate or exploit. Lowering the age of consent may provide legal cover for exploitative relationships, especially where there are differences in age, power, or access. This contradicts the very spirit of the “Best Interest of the Child” doctrine, which obligates all institutions – legal, medical, and educational – to act in ways that prioritise safety, dignity, and well-being.
Legal reforms must not inadvertently enable predators or reduce the threshold of accountability under the assumption that a 16-year-old is capable of the same self-protective decision-making as an adult.

Gendered and Socioeconomic Impact

We must also recognise that a legal shift of this magnitude will not impact all adolescents equally. Girls, especially from rural or economically marginalised backgrounds, are more vulnerable to early marriage, school dropouts, and forced pregnancies — all of which have lifelong health and social implications. A lower age of consent may further erode protections for those who already lack voice and agency, thereby entrenching inequality.

The Precautionary Principle: First, Do No Harm

Borrowed from medical ethics, the principle of primum non nocere (‘first, do no harm’) applies just as forcefully to legal reform involving children. In matters of child rights and protection, the cost of a wrong legal decision can be irreversible. Before considering what freedoms to offer, the State must ask: Will this change increase vulnerability or reduce it?

A Balanced Path Forward

Rather than lowering the age of consent outright, judicial sensitivity, child-centred legal interpretation, and investment in comprehensive sexuality education may be better tools to resolve the tensions within adolescent relationships and the law. These approaches allow for a compassionate response without compromising protective frameworks.

India's commitment under the UNCRC and its own constitutional values require that all legal changes affecting minors undergo the litmus test of “Best Interest of the Child.” It is this doctrine - not romantic idealism or moral panic – that must remain our legal and moral North Star.

(The writer is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and Director, Mana Mandira Healthcare, Bengaluru)