Photo

NEW DELHI —Should it be illegal for 16-year-olds to have sex? What if they’re married?

That debate was reopened recently in India, as the government prepares a new criminal amendment designed to better protect women and punish sexual offenders. Up for discussion is lowering the age of consent from 18 to 16, which may reverse a law passed last year criminalizing all sex involving those under 18, even if it was consensual.

The topic has dominated nightly news programs and spurred heated arguments on both sides. At its heart, the debate pits a growing push to protect children and young women from sexual assault in India against the realities of human sexuality, the lifting of taboos about casual sex and the country’s longstanding patriarchal marriage traditions.

In India, nearly one in every five women between the ages of 20 and 24 are married before the age of 15 and one in every two are married before the age of 18. There has been a sharp decline in marriages below the age of 15, but India still accounts for 40 percent of the world’s child marriages.

Outside of marriage, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that views on casual or recreational sex are changing, as interaction between young men and women increase and more Indians move away from family for work.

“It is quite normal for people to have sexual relations at 16 or 17 years of age,” Indira Jaising, India’s additional solicitor general, said in a telephone interview. “How can we make illegal what is normal?”

By raising the age of consent last year to 18, India became one of the most conservative countries in the world. The age of sexual consent in Britain is 16; in France, it is 15, and in Spain, it is 13 years. In the United States, the age ranges from 16 to 18 years, depending on the state.

India’s Ministry of Women and Child Development maintains that those under 18 are not “physically, psychologically and emotionally capable of handling sexual relations,” a senior ministry official told India Ink.

“Children don’t know what they getting into at that age,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak to the media and asked not to be identified.

This debate is a recent one in India. For decades, the age for sexual consent under India’s penal laws was 16.

Last year, however, the government passed the Prevention of Child Sexual Offenses Act in response to a government survey that found over 53 percent of children in India had experienced some form of sexual abuse. The law raised the age of consent to 18 amid intense debate and opposition.

A sign of how divided government thinking was on the issue: the original version of the bill raised the age of consent to 18, but treated 16- to 18-year-olds differently by requiring that an exception be made for consensual sex. This was included to reflect what the government said was an “emerging social reality regarding awareness, understanding and exposure of adolescents.”

The law, however, was sent to a parliamentary committee, which recommended that the consent clause be omitted. The committee pointed to the fact that most other Indian laws, including contract law, juvenile justice and marriage laws, draw the line at 18 years.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development also pointed to an observation in the standing committee report that lowering the age or making an exception for consensual sex puts the onus on young girls to prove they did not consent in the cases of sexual assault.

“The focus would be on the victim, which would invariably lead to revictimization of the victim,” the report said, adding that this would be “especially problematic when dealing with children.”

In February, the government raised the age of consent to 18 in a hurriedly passed ordinance that amended India’s criminal laws in response to the outrage that followed a fatal gang rape in New Delhi.

In a recent note, however, Human Rights Watch criticized the increase in age of consent, saying Indian law should take into account “adolescents’ evolving capacity and maturity to make decisions” about sex.

“The legal framework should help adolescents deal with their sexuality in an informed and responsible way, and not punish the same population that it is designed to protect,” the note said.

Advocates of a lower age of consent say the law can include safeguards to prevent child abuse. For instance, when a 16-year-old has had sexual relations with, say, a 40-year-old, the law could presume that consent was coerced or wrongfully obtained, because “the balance of power in the relationship is skewed,” Ms. Jaising said.

But no law should criminalize “normal and natural sexual relations” between two people who are in the same age group and have consented to sex, she said.

Some courts in India have endorsed this suggestion. In May 2012, Judge Kamini Lau said that in the absence of what she called a “close-in-age reprieve,” the increase in the age of consent “would become regressive and draconian as it tends to criminalize adolescent sex.

“The need is to correct this behavior and not punish,” she said.

Those working on children’s rights say they have seen this fallout first hand, as boys having consensual sex with 16- to 18-year-old girls are exposed to prosecution.

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, which is advocating for the age of consent to be lowered to 16, says children’s homes are full of boys who have eloped or had consensual sex with young girls whose disapproving parents have filed cases of kidnapping and rape against the boys.

“It is being used widely as a weapon by protective parents,” said Nina Nayak, a member of the commission. “This puts young boys, and sometimes even girls, in a hostile legal environment.”

India’s courts too have raised similar concerns. Criticizing the raising of the age of consent to 18, Virender Bhat, an additional sessions judge, said last year, “Such a move would open the floodgates for prosecution of boys for offenses of rape on the basis of complaints by girls’ parents irrespective of whether the girl was a consenting party.”

But those who oppose a lower age of consent ask why teenagers should be considered adult enough to make decisions about sex at 16 when they can’t drive, vote or get married until they are 18.

“Are you trying to say that if you are sexually active, please have premarital sex till 18 and then get married?” asked Harish Salve, a prominent lawyer, during a television debate. “That’s a very wrong message.”

Lost in the debate over the legal age of consent, say some observers, is whether the government should be playing a role at all in deciding who is allowed to have intercourse. Instead, they argue, young people should get the necessary information to decide for themselves.

“The debate is starting at the wrong end of the stick, and it leaves everyone vulnerable,” said Naina Kapur, a lawyer and women’s rights activist. “We have nothing resembling sex education in India to allow young people to make informed choices.”

Judge Bhat raised the same concerns about the government’s role in deciding a case last year. “Good virtues cannot be inculcated, and good conscience cannot be imbibed in a child by legal provisions,” he said, adding that, this job would be better left to parents and schoolteachers.