In seeking to amend not just the criminal law pertaining to rape but also the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,2012,and bring the latter at par with the formers cutoff of 16 as the age of consent,the government has paved the way for reopening in Parliament a debate sparked by the Delhi gangrape whether the definition of a child should be altered in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act,2000,too.
On Wednesday,the cabinet passed the rape bill with the age-of-consent clause and also passed an amendment to POCSO saying that a child would be anybody aged below 16. Over the last year and a half,two departmental standing committees,those for HRD and home,have unequivocally favoured a uniform definition of a child as one aged below 18 over an age-of-consent clause,so the revisions may come under very close scrutiny once they are tabled in Parliament.
The HRD standing committee in its report on POCSO had asked for the age-of-consent clause to be deleted on the ground that such a provision would completely negate our legal commitments under UNCRC (United Nations Child Rights Convention)1989/1992 and JJ Act 2000/2006 besides leading to a revictimisation of the victim in the court proceedings to prove consent. The standing committee for home had earlier this month said that 18 being the cutoff age for marriage,voting and adulthood,there was no reason to encourage consensual sex before marriage.
Moreover,the move to amend section 2 of POCSO to replace the words eighteen years as sixteen years would bring it in conflict with the JJ Act. In simple terms,the question that may eventually need to be answered is that if a 16-year-old girl can be said to have been mature enough to give consent,then why a 17½-year-old boy (as was the case in the Delhi gangrape) cannot be charged with rape. In the wake of the Delhi gangrape protests,the government had firmly stood its ground about the irrevocability of the definition of child a defence that may now need a re-explanation.
It is not just about the UNCRC,because even that is subject to change depending on country-specific sensibilities,but having put up such a staunch defence of the 18-year bar for the JJ Act,it may now be difficult to answer questions about why it was not touched when POCSO is being changed within six months of its notification, said a senior official of the WCD ministry.
Another sticking point would be that with the rape law gender-specific and POCSO dealing only with people aged under 16,what law would come to the rescue of boys aged between 16 and 18 who are subjected to sexual assault.
BJP MP Venkaiah Naidu,who heads the standing committee on home affairs,is upset that the clear recommendation of his committee on 18 years was overruled in the governments hurry. The criminal law amendment bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December last year,and on December 28 it was referred to the standing committee. Subsequently the Justice Verma Committee was formed and its recommendations sent to us,but without waiting for the report of the committee,the ordinance was brought out, Naidu said.
We had clearly said that 18 years being the age of marriage,voting and adulthood that should also be the age of consent. The standing committee is a mini-parliament,yet that recommendation was not heeded, Naidu said.