Whom shall we blame, either a minor boy or a minor girl when they have consensual sex? When parents of such children get to know about such activities they simply blame a guy and file a rape case against him. Many cases are the result of angry and disappointed parents. As having sex with a minor even with consent is rape they get tagged as a rapist and are liable for the punishment.
After getting labelled as a sex offender, it will never let them survive in peace.
Also, their education, career and social life would be affected even though they did not have the intention of sexual exploitation.
Romeo and Juliet law
According to the National Penal (Code) Act of 2017, consent can be communicated verbally, in writing, or through gestures or conduct. It specifies that the age of consent in Nepal is 18 years, and that consent granted by a minor is not considered, anyone who has a physical relation with the minor despite their consent is deemed to be rape.
This provision has come to protect girls from being a victim of rape, it is believed that they do not have enough knowledge about it and they easily can get manipulated. But while protecting minor girls, the law is unfair to the minor boy or the one who has just attended major age, they are being labelled as a rapist for having consent sex without any wrong intention towards their girl.
When two minors or couples who are very close in age where one has attended the age of majority fall in love with one another and start getting close physically, those men are reported as rapists by the girl’s parents, where innocent young boys must endure injustice.
So, one of the ways to protect young males from getting registered as a rapist when they have consensual sex in love is to implement Romeo and Juliet law or close-in-age law.
It protects a teenager from being registered as a rapist; it tries to protect the right of both males and females when there is no wrong intention regarding the sexual relation.
The Romeo and Juliet law is a legal provision that provides an exception to statutory rape laws in cases where the two participants are close in age or minor and the sexual activity is consensual. The Romeo and Juliet Law is an exceptional clause that grants some level of protection to statutory rape offenders where the young consented to sexual intercourse and the age difference between the minor and the alleged offender is small.
This law does not allow people to have physical relations with minors but tries to protect people from the sex offender registry. It prevents serious criminal charges against teenagers who engage in normal sexual behaviour in consent and who are close in age.
This law exists in over 30 states and is intended to avoid criminalising consensual sexual activity between young people who are close in age (the age gap can vary with the different state’s laws) while most of the states have mentioned about 3 years of age gap.
But it also has the limitation of the age of a minor; any minor in the cases must be at least 14 years of age (it varies with the different state’s laws) but in most cases, any minor to give consent should be at least 13 years.
Amendment of laws as per Romeo-Juliet law
The state must protect the children, while protecting females from being sexually abused we cannot neglect the male child’s future when they had a physical relationship in love with consent. The state cannot be unfair to the young males.
The implementation of Romeo-Juliet law or close-in-age law and the amendment of law as per Romeo-Juliet law or close-in-age law have become very important in Nepal. Many innocent people are being criminalised just because of this loophole in law.
When a girl of 15 years and a boy of 17-18 years get into an intimate relationship is different than an adult exploiting a child. Also, being labeled as a criminal or say sex offender would affect the entire life of a person; neither his education nor social life would be good with this label.
When the parents of the girl get to know about the relationship between them, they get hurried to blame the guy without understanding the real things. The result of the angry parents is messing with the future of another respondent or a guy. They need to get protected too.
Vijaylaxmi and Anr v/s State Rep.: the fact of the case: a girl and a boy ran away from the family to get the marriage while a girl was a minor. When the family found them they filed a rape case. But later that case was withdrawn because the parties did not want to take the legal proceeding ahead. After all, both the respondent had run away from their family to get married and later parents had agreed to the marriage considering it was not rape.
Consent and love between them were considered and the case was withdrawn. Sexual relation between two minors is not considered rape. The exemption to withdraw the rape case understanding the condition is a very big achievement in today’s situation, withdrawal of this case has saved a boy to get labelled as a sex offender.
Santosh Kumar Yadav v/s Nepal Government has set the precedent that having physical relations after child marriage cannot be considered rape. They are already married and have consent for the relationship, which cannot be regarded as rape. Likewise, the consensual sexual relation cannot be labialized as statutory rape. This practice would protect the future of the younger accused who did not have any malafide intention regarding the physical relationship.
The amendment of the prevailing laws has become very necessary to fill up the loopholes in the laws. It is very necessary to understand that having consensual sex between partners who are minors in age is not the same as adult sexual exploitation.
This law would protect both the child and the teenager from getting registered as a sex offender. It would reduce the burden of the judicial body as well.
