E-Paper
Hallelujah! The government says yes to sex ed
After two decades of moral panic and dithering, are we finally ready?
In a remarkable and welcome turn of events, the central government on Monday told the Supreme Court that it is ready to introduce comprehensive sexuality education in schools and colleges following the recommendations of a 26-member national committee.
Once the Supreme Court approves the recommendations, students from class six onward can expect “age-appropriate” lessons that include safety, body image, hygiene, “good touch/bad touch” and the idea of consent.
The push for sex ed—or to use its more proper name, comprehensive sexuality education—comes from the Supreme Court itself. It stems from an apparent disconnect between the law and teenage sexual behaviour. For teenagers sex is a “normal process of development”, as one study puts it. But, under the law, the age of consent is 18 and, so, sex with a girl below the age of 18, even if she initiates it, is deemed rape.
Very often it’s the parents of the girls who file rape complaints—sometimes after they find out she’s pregnant, or sometimes because they simply disapprove. A three-state study by the Enfold Proactive Health Trust found that 80.2% of ‘romantic’ cases were filed by parents or relatives after a girl had eloped or become pregnant.
It was one such case that a two-judge Supreme Court bench was hearing in 2024. In West Bengal, a 14-year-old girl had run off with a considerably older 25-year-old man. They subsequently got married and had a daughter. The girl’s mother filed a complaint and a district court sentenced him to 20 years in jail.
On appeal, the high court overturned that verdict but also decided to deliver a little homily on adolescent sexuality, advising girls to control their “sexual urges”. After the outrage that followed, the Supreme Court decided to intervene. It upheld the man’s conviction saying it could not break the law, but refused to sentence him.
In the slew of measures that followed, senior advocates Madhavi Divan and Liz Mathew who were amici curiae, or friends of the court, assisting it in the case suggested the need for a national sex education policy. It is on this recommendation that a committee was set up and a curriculum proposed.
Now that the central government has told the court that it is ready to introduce it, it’s up to the Supreme Court to green light it.
A rocky past
Attempts to introduce sex education have in the past been patchy. In 2007, the central government rolled out an Adolescence Education Programme only for it to be banned in several states.
The backlash cut across party lines. BJP governments in several states including Gujarat where chief minister Anandiben Patel banned it on the grounds that it went against Indian culture and Madhya Pradesh where chief minister Babulal Gaur suggested yoga as an alternative rejected it. In Maharashtra, legislators from the ruling party as well as the opposition said the text books would corrupt young minds. For good measure, they also banned an instruction manual for teachers so perhaps the corruption of adult minds was also on their mind.
The 2007 attempts at sex ed came on the heels of the HIV/AIDS campaign and the need to promote safe sex. NACO, or the National AIDS Control Organisation, was walking on eggshells when in 2008 it came up with a new version of its manual for school teachers in which terms like “penetrative sex” and “sexual intercourse” were subsequently excised.
Senior advocate Anand Grover recalls that era. As a lawyer on the frontlines of the HIV/AIDS battle he travelled around the country speaking to students at colleges. “I was welcome everywhere. The students were desperate for knowledge,” he says.
This time the recommendations are part of a broader framework for introducing adolescent education in schools and colleges that align with the National Education Policy of 2020. Adolescent education, including concepts of consent, will begin from class six and will include gender equality, cyber safety and emotional well-being.
Sex education
Ignoring the whining over cultural values—where do these custodians think the Kama Sutra originated, or how on earth did we become a nation of 1.4 billion people—there can be no ambiguity about the necessity of a robust curriculum for sex ed. This is not just to promote safe sex or make teenagers aware of the legal consequences of their actions or give lessons on the biology of reproduction. It is about equipping young people with healthy, informed and evidence-based knowledge about sexuality more so at a time where information and ideas, including those of toxic masculinity, come from the internet.
“Sexuality has to be viewed as something positive and cannot be taught only through the lens of abuse,” says Arti Shukla who heads Love Matters India, a digital platform that advices on love, sex and relationships.
A robust curriculum should also include sexual orientation, pleasure, positive body image, gender relations, and, very crucially, concepts of consent.
Without an enabling environment where body parts can be named without shame and where teachers and parents become resources rather than threats, the real challenge for us is to shed our historic reluctance to talk about sex.
Silence has never protected young people. Knowledge that comes from a reliable source can only lead to informed choices. Sex education cannot be seen as just an addition to curriculum. It has the potential for change, removing myths and stereotypes, to lead eventually to a more respectful, egalitarian society.
