Age of Consent Act, 1891
| Age of Consent Act, 1891 (Act X of 1891) | |
|---|---|
British India under Crown rule
|
|
| An Act to amend the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure,1882. | |
| Enacted by | Governor-General of India in Council |
| Date enacted | 19 March 1891 |
| Legislative history | |
| Bill | Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 amendment bill |
| Bill published on | 9 January 1891 |
| Introduced by | Sir Andrew Scoble |
| Second reading | March, 1891 |
| Status: Repealed | |
The Age of Consent Act, 1891, also Act X of 1891, was a legislation enacted in British India on 19 March 1891 which raised the age of consent for sexual intercourse for all girls, married or unmarried, from ten to twelve years in all jurisdictions, its violation subject to criminal prosecution as rape.[1][nb 1] The act was an amendment of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 375, 1882, ("Of Rape"),[nb 2] and was introduced as a bill on 9 January 1891 by Sir Andrew Scoble in the Legislative Council of the Governor-General of India in Calcutta.[2] It was debated the same day and opposed by council member Sir Romesh Chunder Mitter (from Bengal) on the grounds that it interfered with orthodox Hindu code, but supported by council member Rao Bahadur Krishnaji Lakshman Nulkar (from Bombay) and by the President of the council, the Governor-General and Viceroy Lord Lansdowne.[2][3][nb 3]
While an 1880 case in a Bombay high court by a child-bride, Rukhmabai, renewed discussion of such a law, the death of an eleven-year-old Bengali girl, Phulomnee, due to forceful intercourse by her 35-year-old husband in 1889, necessitated intervention by the British.[4] The act was passed in 1891. It received support from Indian reformers such as Behramji Malabari and women social organisations. The law was never seriously enforced and it is argued that the real effect of the law was reassertion of Hindu patriarchal control over domestic issues as a nationalistic cause.[5]
Passage of legislation
In 1880, Rukhmabai, a 22-year-old woman was taken to Bombay high court by her husband Dadaji as she refused to recognise their marriage rights. She was married as a child to him and argued that their marriage is not binding after 11 years of separate living. She eventually lost the case.[6] This trial is believed to be one of the precursors for the passage of this legislation.[7] The death of an 11-year-old Bengali girl Phoolmonee after being brutally raped by her 35-year-old husband Hari Mohan Maitee in 1889 served as a catalyst for its legislation[5][8]
Hari Mohan Maitee was acquitted on charges of rape, but found guilty on causing death inadvertently by a rash and negligent act.[4]
A committee consisting of influential British and Anglo-Indian statesmen established in London had submitted recommendations to the colonial government including the change in age of consent. The law was signed on 19 March 1891 by the government of Lord Lansdowne raising the age of consent for consummation from ten to twelve years.[6][9]
Support
Behramji Malabari, a Parsi reformer and a journalist from Bombay advocated for this legislation. He published his messages in "Notes on Infant marriage and enforced widowhood" in 1884. Although a Parsi, he claimed to be as critical of Hindu customs and domestic practices as the British.
Though women were not consulted for determining the effect of child-marriage, women in Bombay presidency including Rukhmabai and Pandita Ramabai made a cogent case for the ban on child-marriage in their magazines and social reform organisations. Anandi Gopal Joshi, a Maharashtrian woman who also happened to be the first female medical doctor in India advocated interference of the British Government in child marriage.[7]
Opposition
The Bill was opposed by many orthodox leaders who believed it as an interference in the Hindu religion. Bal Gangadhar Tilak opposed the age of consent. "We would not like that the government should have anything to do with regulating our social customs or ways of living, even supposing that the act of government will be a very beneficial and suitable measure," Tilak vigorously protested.
References
- Notes
- ↑ For text of the Act, see: Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ For the text of the amended section 375, see Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ For the abstract of the debate, see: Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- Citations
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found., pages 502–503.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Sarkar, Tanika. "A Prehistory of Rights: The Age of Consent Debate in Colonial Bengal, Feminist Studies." 2000.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Van der Veer, Peter. Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain. Princeton, 2001. 96. (Google book search)
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara. From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India. Orient Blackswan, 2004. 237-238. ISBN 81-250-2596-0 (Google book search)
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 George Robb and Nancy Erber, eds. Disorder in the Court: Trials and Sexual Conflict at the Turn of the Century. New York University Press, 1999. 33-35. ISBN 0-8147-7526-8
- ↑ Majumdar, Rochona. "Silent no longer." India Today 26 October 2007.
- ↑ Karkar jkia, Rustomji Pestonji. India: Forty Years of Progress and Reform, Being a Sketch of the Life and Times of Behramji M. Malabari. H. Frowde, 1896. 128. (Google book search)
