One decision the Union Cabinet is likely to take as per media
reports has my whole-hearted support. I am sure the largest Opposition party
will also back the decision. The UPA Government is thinking of introducing a
bill in the Parliament to make sexual intercourse and even “contact with sexual
intent” with a person below the age of eighteen illegal. I have always wondered
why a PIL was not filed in the Supreme Court by some conscientious social
worker or Women’s body to urge use of its special powers under Article 142 to
make the “age of consent” 18, not 16 as now when for all practical purposes a
person under eighteen is considered a ‘minor’. When parents marrying away a
girl under eighteen invites prosecution, a someone who forces a girl of sixteen
to have sex with him escapes the punishment for ‘statutory rape’ because clever
defence lawyers manage to convince judges that the girl had consented more
often than not with a retraction of the girl’s statement in the court under
threat or offer of reward.
A girl under eighteen has no right to exercise her franchise
for election to Punchayaths, State Legislature or the Parliament; she has to
wait for attaining ‘majority’, meaning 18 years of age for property
transactions; but is supposed to have come of age to give consent to someone
for ravishing her virginity and unintentionally producing her own offspring in
the process! Larger number of girl children is coming under the ambit of exploitation
with their attainment of puberty down from 13-14 to 10 years. Adolescent
behaviour characterised by raging hormones and physical changes are thus
advanced to younger age-groups. This catapults such immature individuals to
higher levels of physical and mental risks following their appearance in the
catchment area of exploiters. It is in this very alarming context that certain
judges and sociologists are asking for reducing the age of content.
In my opinion the above anomaly with respect to majority and
age of consent being rectified is a great thing. Particularly with the lax
morals thanks to the leakage of the worst of Western values into our society
the youth find it adventurous and ‘modern’ to experiment with physical
relationships. With so much contemporary literature including
magazine-newspaper articles extolling the normality of gay, lesbian activities
and sex with multiple partners as almost the norm we are facing an avalanche of
uninhibited sexual behaviour that our cultural moorings would pronounce
unbecoming. Incestual relationships are on the increase. Young people joke
about relationships which were considered a taboo in the past. Consensual sex even
in the Supreme Court chambers of senior lawyers is being defended these days as
a right. Police officials and politicians are known to trap/lure minor girls
using threats and rewards or both. Domestic helps of all ages are known to be
routinely subjected to sexual exploitation. The earlier bill, The Protection of
Children from Sexual Offenses Bill (2011) had indeed a provision for consensual
sexual activity between the ages of 16 and 18, but the new one drops the caveat,
effectively incriminating under-age sex. The proposed law, very aptly include workplace
harassment of women employees including domestic helps (who, I understand
constitute 30% of the working women), and also sexual assault on male children.
It seems such a statute was under consideration since 2006,
and a bill was tabled in Parliament in 2010 and a Parliamentary panel sat on it
so far. Being moved by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the
proposed act brings all sexually-determined behaviour including physical
contact and advances, demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured
remarks, showing pornography or other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal
conduct of sexual nature under the definition of “sexual harassment”.
There indeed are sociologists who oppose the proposal to make sex with the under-aged an offense making such sexual behaviour some kind of a teenage right. It is this
type of sociology that invites trouble to the present generation in the name of
psychological evolution and physiological changes. Their averment is that since
puberty arrives early young people are getting sexually active at an early age.
They say, “Charity begins at home” and rightly so. Similarly, such high
thinking should be implemented at the homes of these sociologists over a period
of time and studied meticulously, before they exhort the general public to
approve it. Actor Rahul Bose’s The Foundation argues that when many boys will
go to jail for under-age sex offenses, their partner girls are left back at
risky sexual behaviour, and increasing health risks, whatever that means! There are some psychiatrists worrying about
the children “denied” teenage sex “using more dangerous ways of experimenting.”
The cacophony goes on like a massed chorus, a campaign of course: “Are they
going to punish young people for pre-marital sex?”, “will they now insist on
girls wearing chastity belts?”... there are legal pundits quoting statistics since
1860 to 1973 showing the age of consent and consummation were much lower at 10
years, rising to 16. Don' they realise that the progression was due to greater awareness and
evolution of human thought. You cannot oppose Rajastan’s child marriages as
decadent, and support under-age sex, they forget.
A Delhi judge appears to be the first to fire in favour of a
lower age of consent in his anxiety to let off an Ashok Vihar boy (that has a
particular connotation in Delhi – it is neighbourhood accommodating the rich
and influential!) rules that he cannot take a hyper-technical view to punish a
young man who has sex with a girl under 18 and punish him for statutory rape, agreeing
with the defence lawyer that the girl had eloped with the boy and not abducted
by him as the prosecution argued. The judge avers that the girl being happily married,
though not with each other (!) exposing the culprit and the victim of October 2008
incident the future of both could be destroyed. Being not a High Court/Supreme
Court judge, I do not thing this judicial officer has the right to go beyond the scope of the law as it exists today, the far-reaching consequences and
visionary projections being not the prerogative of the lower judiciary.
Sadly, the day the report of this welcome statute made the
news, the newspapers also reported that the former Haryana Director General of
Police S P S Rathore, the classic example of a police official misusing his
powers to subjugate a minor girl, Ruchika Girhotra to his sexual desires asking
for his with-held pension ordered to be released by the CAT, while celebrating
his wife’s birthday gifting her a Mercedes Benz car for which he paid Rs.
9,05,001 for just the fancy number plate CH 01 AM 0001! Rathore was awarded six
months' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 1,000 by the Chandigarh CBI court in
December 2009 for molesting the 14-year-old tennis player on August 12, 1990. Sessions
Court, which enhanced the sentence to 18 months imprisonment and on revision
the Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the sentence. Rathore served his jail
term from May to November 2010. He was released on bail by the Supreme Court on
November 11, 2010. However, he was asked not to leave India and the case is
still pending in the Apex Court. The girl committed suicide three years later
unable to withstand his constant sexual harassment, using her brother’s plight
as bait, booking him falsely under several offences. Rathore had in total 12
cases registered against the family which eventually moved out of Chandigarh.
All that the heartless policeman had got as punishment for the most heinous
crime committed was Rs.1000 fine and 6 months imprisonment!