‘Removal of consent caveat makes no sense’

If the aim of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill is to protect children from being sexually abused by adults, the removal of the consent clause makes no sense.
Revising the age of consent from 16 to 18 is tantamount to criminalizing teenage sex between children who are 16-18 years old. If the legislation aims at punishing adults who sexually abuse children, how does the removal of the consent clause help? Such a step will only make the bill regressive.Besides, in India, the question of who a child is, is itself a highly complex issue. This could further complicate the concept.
Importantly, even the original consent clause, which was subsequently removed from the legislation, doesn’t spell out in detail whether consent is invoked only when both parties are between 16 and 18, or whether one of them can be above 18. There can always be a situation where one is between 16 and 18 and the other an adult. The bill needs to specify whether this is allowed and to what extent. For instance, if the girl is between 16 and 18 and the man 30 or 40, this should not be allowed. The law needs to be clear before it can be used to protect children.
If you want to protect children from abuse, you can’t bring consensual sex between teenagers under the criminal law. Force and violence against teens cannot be used under the guise of protecting them. The removal of the age of consent for those between 16 and 18 contradicts the IPC. It is also something the moral police will take advantage of resulting in harassment of youngsters.
(Asha Bajpai is a child rights activist and Chairperson, Professor, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies and Human Rights, Tata Institute of Social Sciences) As told to Anahita Mukherji