#15 Amicus Curiae Counters Government's Stand on Age of Consent — What Does It Really Mean?

👉 Note:
1. To read this in your preferred language, use the Google Translate feature available at the top-right corner of the page.
2. To listen to this write-up, click on the Read Aloud button! 🎧
3. The Read Aloud feature works best on desktop or laptop devices.

You may have come across headlines like "Amicus counters government stand, says it violates right to autonomy." But what exactly does it mean when an amicus curiae "counters" the government?

In simple terms: It means that the legal expert appointed by the court disagrees with the government’s argument in the case and presents an alternate view to protect constitutional values like autonomy or justice.

Who is an Amicus Curiae?

Amicus Curiae is Latin for "friend of the court." This is a person — often a senior advocate or legal scholar — appointed by the court to give an impartial opinion on complex legal or constitutional matters.

What Does "Counters" Mean Here?

In legal parlance, “to counter” means to oppose or provide a contradictory opinion. So when an amicus counters the government, they are essentially telling the court that the government's legal stance is unjustified or unconstitutional.

Case in Focus: Indira Jaising on Age of Consent

Indira Jaising Supreme Court Age of Consent

In the ongoing PIL related to the age of consent, senior advocate and amicus curiae Indira Jaising appeared before the Supreme Court and opposed the government's rigid position on keeping the age of consent fixed at 18 years.

She argued that criminalising consensual sexual activity between 16-18-year-olds violates their autonomy. According to her, this blanket rule disregards early puberty, sexual awareness, and the lived realities of adolescents.

Jaising highlighted that the age of consent had remained static at 16 for nearly 80 years before it was raised without any rational or evidence-backed justification. She proposed an exception for "close in age" relationships — where both individuals are adolescents, the relationship is non-abusive, and the consent is mutual.

Why Does It Matter?

The court often values the views of the amicus curiae because they offer a neutral yet expert perspective, especially on rights-based and constitutional matters. In this case, Jaising’s opinion urges the court to consider balancing protection with autonomy — especially for adolescents who may be criminalised for consensual intimacy.

So, when we say “Amicus counters the government”, it means that the court is hearing both the state’s viewpoint and a neutral legal expert’s counterpoint — a vital step in ensuring justice.