Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14718,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 30 April, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Regressive-clause-clashes-with-IPC-rape-laws/articleshow/12930447.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14842,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14718,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;gender violence,Gender,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14718,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 30 April, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Regressive-clause-clashes-with-IPC-rape-laws/articleshow/12930447.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14842,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 14718
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;gender violence,Gender,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify">If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.<br /><br />Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.<br /><br />The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.<br /><br />The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; is committed against &quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&quot;<br /><br />This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.<br /><br />Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &quot;irrelevant&quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &quot;in consonance with the country's commitment&quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.<br /><br />The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.<br /><br />It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14718,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 30 April, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Regressive-clause-clashes-with-IPC-rape-laws/articleshow/12930447.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14842,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14718,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;gender violence,Gender,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14718,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 30 April, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Regressive-clause-clashes-with-IPC-rape-laws/articleshow/12930447.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14842,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 14718
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;gender violence,Gender,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify">If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.<br /><br />Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.<br /><br />The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.<br /><br />The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; is committed against &quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&quot;<br /><br />This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.<br /><br />Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &quot;irrelevant&quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &quot;in consonance with the country's commitment&quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.<br /><br />The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.<br /><br />It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804ec706cfbf-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14718,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 30 April, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Regressive-clause-clashes-with-IPC-rape-laws/articleshow/12930447.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14842,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14718,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;gender violence,Gender,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14718,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 30 April, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Regressive-clause-clashes-with-IPC-rape-laws/articleshow/12930447.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14842,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 14718
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;gender violence,Gender,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &amp;quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&amp;quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; is committed against &amp;quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &amp;quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&amp;quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &amp;quot;penetrative sexual assault&amp;quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &amp;quot;irrelevant&amp;quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &amp;quot;in consonance with the country&#039;s commitment&amp;quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify">If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.<br /><br />Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.<br /><br />The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.<br /><br />The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; is committed against &quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&quot;<br /><br />This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.<br /><br />Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &quot;irrelevant&quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &quot;in consonance with the country's commitment&quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.<br /><br />The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.<br /><br />It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 14718,
		'title' => 'Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.<br />
<br />
Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.<br />
<br />
The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.<br />
<br />
The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; is committed against &quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&quot;<br />
<br />
This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.<br />
<br />
Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &quot;irrelevant&quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &quot;in consonance with the country's commitment&quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.<br />
<br />
The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.<br />
<br />
It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. <br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 30 April, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Regressive-clause-clashes-with-IPC-rape-laws/articleshow/12930447.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 14842,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 14718,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta',
	'metaKeywords' => 'gender violence,Gender,Law and Justice',
	'metaDesc' => '

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and...',
	'disp' => '<br /><div align="justify">If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.<br /><br />Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.<br /><br />The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.<br /><br />The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; is committed against &quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&quot;<br /><br />This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.<br /><br />Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &quot;irrelevant&quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &quot;in consonance with the country's commitment&quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.<br /><br />The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.<br /><br />It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. <br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 14718,
	'title' => 'Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.<br />
<br />
Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.<br />
<br />
The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.<br />
<br />
The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; is committed against &quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&quot;<br />
<br />
This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.<br />
<br />
Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &quot;irrelevant&quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &quot;in consonance with the country's commitment&quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.<br />
<br />
The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.<br />
<br />
It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. <br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 30 April, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Regressive-clause-clashes-with-IPC-rape-laws/articleshow/12930447.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'regressive-clause-clashes-with-ipc-rape-laws-manoj-mitta-14842',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 14842,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 14718
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta'
$metaKeywords = 'gender violence,Gender,Law and Justice'
$metaDesc = '

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and...'
$disp = '<br /><div align="justify">If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape.<br /><br />Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised &quot;Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill&quot; , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls.<br /><br />The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children.<br /><br />The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; is committed against &quot;a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ...&quot;<br /><br />This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: &quot;Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill.&quot; The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with &quot;penetrative sexual assault&quot; , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC.<br /><br />Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent &quot;irrelevant&quot; up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was &quot;in consonance with the country's commitment&quot; to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18.<br /><br />The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex.<br /><br />It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Regressive clause clashes with IPC rape laws-Manoj Mitta

If the Bill seeking to protect children from sexual offences is passed by Parliament in the form in which it was cleared last week by the Cabinet, then there will be a direct but unstated conflict between the general and special laws on rape. Under the special law proposed in the freshly revised "Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill" , no person below 18 years will have the legal capability to give consent for engaging in any kind of sexual activity. This flies in the face of the general law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), which recognizes 16 as the age of consent for girls. The uncertainty inherent in this conflict makes a mockery of the lofty intentions with which the age of consent is sought to be increased from 16 to 18 as it may serve as a loophole for the accused even in the most serious cases of sexual offences against children. The Bill in its original form, as introduced last year in Parliament, did not contain any such contradiction . In keeping with the definition of rape in Section 375 of IPC, the Bill, envisaging special safeguards for children, expressly said that where "penetrative sexual assault" is committed against "a child between 16 to 18 years of age, it shall be considered whether the consent for such act has been obtained against the will of the child or the consent has been obtained by use of violence, force ..." This eminently sensible caveat to clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill has since been deleted by the Cabinet, thanks to a recommendation made by a parliamentary standing committee headed by Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. Little thought appears to have been paid to the implications of removing those IPCcompliant clauses from the Bill. How can the age of consent be both 16 and 18 in the same sexual context under two different laws? In its report tabled in Parliament in December, the standing committee addressed this critical question cursorily. All it said was: "Section 375 of IPC would operate in totally different circumstances when compared with provisions in clauses 3 and 7 of the present Bill." The claim is far from true as one of the clauses in the special legislation , clause 3 of the Bill, dealing with "penetrative sexual assault" , would fall squarely under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC. Equally dubious is its claim that the recommendation to make consent "irrelevant" up to the age of 18 even in sexual matters was "in consonance with the country's commitment" to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC). For, nowhere does the UNCRC stipulate that the age of consent for sexual activities should be fixed at 18. This is borne out by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the countries, including advanced democracies, have adopted an age of consent that is below 18. The only source from which the standing committee could have drawn any kind of justification for its recommendation to increase the age of consent is a draft Bill put out by the home ministry over two years ago to amend various provisions of IPC, including Section 375. The draft criminal law (amendment ) Bill proposed, among other things, to increase the age of consent in the rape provision from 16 to 18. If the home ministry has since made no visible progress on this draft Bill, it could well have been - at least in part - because of the adverse reactions it might have received from feminists and human rights defenders of the controversial proposal of criminalizing teenage sex. It is curious that elements of the executive (home ministry) and legislature (standing committee) came up with such proposals even after the law commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge had twice in recent years debunked the idea of increasing the age of consent . The first time was in 2000 when the law commission headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy specifically said in its review of rape laws that the existing age of consent should be retained. Then, while proposing amendments in 2008 to the child marriage Act and allied laws, the commission headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan reiterated the need to maintain the present age of consent.