India, Dec. 1 -- Debates on children's issues often erupt into public controversy, and the current discussion on the age of consent is no different. The latest trigger is a petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the criminalisation of consensual sexual activity between adolescents aged 16-18 years in Nipun Saxena vs Union of India. The age of consent is not the same as the age of majority or the age of marriage. It simply marks the age at which an individual can legally consent to sexual activity. The debate over this age has existed since the late 1800s, with the threshold shifting from 10 years to 16 years in 1949. It remained at 16 until the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act in 2012, which raised it to 18 despite concerns about the practical implications of such a change. Evidence shows that adolescents do engage in sexual relationships regardless of adult misgivings. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019-21), nearly 40% of women aged 25-49 had their first sexual experience before turning 18. The courts are inundated with what are commonly called "love cases"- criminal proceedings arising from consensual adolescent relationships. Studies such as the 2017 HAQ: Centre for Child Rights study and Implementation of the Pocso Act: A Study of the Functioning of Special Courts in Delhi and Mumbai" by Enfold Proactive Health Trust documented similar trends across four states and revealed how these cases are occupying court time, and also end up in acquittal by the courts. Most accused in these cases are boys between 16 and 18 who enter consensual relationships with peers. The courts themselves have acknowledged this reality. In State v. Hitesh (Delhi High Court, 2025), for example, the court observed that "love is a fundamental human experience" and that adolescents have the right to form consensual emotional and romantic relationships free from coercion. The former chief justice of India, DY Chandrachud, had also urged Parliament to reconsider the age of consent under Pocso, noting the disconnect between the law and lived realities. This divide frames the current debate. On one side are those who argue that adolescent sexuality is a fact of life and that the law must evolve to avoid criminalising young people in consensual relationships. On the other hand are those who believe lowering the age of consent will promote promiscuity, increase teenage pregnancies, and heighten vulnerability to exploitation, child marriage, and trafficking - especially among Dalit, Bahujan, and Adivasi communities. The age of consent was discussed extensively when Pocso was being drafted, but proposals for a lower age were disregarded, including recommendations from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). The rationale offered was the need to align with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Juvenile Justice law, and the Majority Act. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, subsequently revised Section 375 of the IPC on similar lines. Later, in Independent Thought v. Union of India, the Supreme Court clarified that Pocso applied even within marriage, effectively criminalising marital sex where the wife is below 18. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has retained this position. As a result, all sexual activity involving anyone under 18 - whether consensual or not - is treated as statutory rape. Mandatory reporting under Pocso has created further complications. Girls facing unintended pregnancies - often from consensual relationships - struggle to access safe, confidential abortion services because health care providers fear legal consequences. A 2021 fact-finding study by NLSIU and the Centre for Reproductive Rights found that clinics routinely deny services to underage girls. This forces many children to resort to unsafe and illegal abortions, exposing them to greater health risks and further vulnerability. Preventing such pregnancies is more effectively achieved through comprehensive sexuality education and access to contraception, not criminal prosecution. Let us be clear: The goal is not to encourage sexual activity among minors but to distinguish harm from innocence, coercion from curiosity. It is to provide protection to children - and not be protectionist. Protection is grounded in rights and empowers children; protectionism is rooted in social norms and often ends up restricting their autonomy. If criminal sanctions were the most effective solution, rape would have disappeared with the introduction of the death penalty. While the choices that the children and adolescents are making may not always be ideal, penal action cannot be the answer. The response lies instead in measures such as open conversations with young people about responsible sexual behaviour, empowering them to understand violence, and strengthening their capacity to protect themselves through education, life-skills training, and the creation of safety nets....