THE JURISPRUDENCE OF ADOLESCENT AUTONOMY: EVALUATING THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK OF CONSENT

Abstract

Adolescent autonomy jurisprudence is characterised by a persistent tension between the state’s protective parens patriae function and the recognition of minors’ evolving capacities. Historically, age thresholds most commonly 18 have served as proxies for maturity, yet these thresholds increasingly conflict with contemporary psychological research and constitutional rights to dignity and privacy. This paper critiques existing consent mechanisms, highlighting how stringent liability rules, such as those in India’s POCSO Act, often criminalise normative adolescent development by failing to distinguish between exploitation and consensual peer relationships.

This paper advocates for a transition from status-based rights to a competency-based paradigm, drawing upon the historic "Mature Minor" doctrine established in Gillick v. West Norfolk and supported by recent legal developments from 2024 to 2026. There is increasing constitutional discomfort with absolute paternalism, as reflected in recent judicial decisions in both the Commonwealth and India. Courts are increasingly utilising extraordinary powers to mitigate the severity of mandatory sentencing for older adolescents (16–18 years), indicating a pressing need for legislative reform.

The analysis concludes that a reconceptualised legal framework should incorporate close-in-age exemptions and judicial discretion to respect adolescents’ decisional autonomy while maintaining essential safeguards. Legal systems could adopt a more nuanced understanding of capacity by harmonising international human rights standards, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, with domestic legislation. Ultimately, the study contends that safeguarding minors’ welfare can coexist with recognising their agency; genuine protection necessitates legal acknowledgement of the transition from childhood dependency to autonomous personhood.