Juvenile Justice

Table of Contents

Author: Urwashi Pandey

Institute: Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi

“I’ve got thoughts of determination in the midst of hard times. Hard facts of life replace nursery rhymes in the hearts and minds of our city’s youth.”
— Jacob L. Zerkle

Introduction

In the recent decade, the juvenile justice debate in India has intensified with the emergence of many cases involving minors. A common concern voiced in the debate is that the age limit set by the government of 18 years raises concerns, asking whether the threshold set for offenders is appropriate in all circumstances, particularly involving many heinous crimes.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 allows for 16 to 18-year-olds to be tried in the court as adults, but is this an appropriate legal ruling?

Understanding Juvenile Justice in India

The Latin phrase Doli Incapax has been used to describe the legal principle that children, due to their age and cognitive development, may not fully be able to comprehend the consequences of their actions.

Parens patriae is the foundational doctrine of the juvenile justice system in many countries, including India. It refers to the legal principle that the state is responsible for the protection of those who cannot protect themselves, such as minors and the mentally ill.

In the context of Juvenile Justice, the state acts as a guardian to children in conflict with the law and focuses on their rehabilitation and reformation rather than punishment, as children are considered capable of change.

Historical Background and Age Threshold

The idea of juvenile justice as a separate system emerged in the United States in the late 19th century. Before this, minors were tried and sentenced as adults with no regard for their age and cognitive development. The first juvenile court was established in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899.

The concept of Juvenile Justice in India dates back to British colonial rule. The Apprentices Act of 1850 was the first legislative attempt that allowed courts to treat children aged 10–18, convicted of petty offences, as apprentices rather than criminals. They aimed to reform the children through vocational training rather than jail. The Reformatory Schools Act, 1897, established special institutions to detain juveniles separately from adults. However, these laws were limited in scope, and they could not be applied across provinces. They lacked a strong rehabilitative framework and mostly served in the interest of the British administration.

India has progressively evolved its juvenile justice laws. In response to growing concerns over juvenile delinquency, the National Policy for Children, 1974, laid the groundwork for state-led protection and welfare programs. It called for free education, nutritional support, protection from exploitation, and priority aid during calamities.

Following this, the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 was enacted to create a uniform juvenile justice system across India. It was based on the principles of Parens Patriae and Doli Incapax, aiming to rehabilitate and not punish minors.

Later, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, added stronger care provisions. But after the 2012 Nirbhaya rape case, with one of its accused being a minor, public outrage led to the 2015 amendment. This gave the courts the power to try 16 to 18-year-old juveniles as adults in cases including heinous acts, after a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board. (JJ Act, 2015)

Arguments for Lowering the Age Threshold

Supporters argue that the nature of crimes committed by juveniles, especially those aged 16–18, has become increasingly violent. The Delhi gang rape case, where one of the most brutal attackers was a juvenile, sparked nationwide outrage and was a key reason for the 2015 amendment.

According to NCRB data, crimes committed by juveniles have been increasing since 2003, with a notable rise in murders and rapes within this age group.

Supporters argue that many offenders are fully aware of the nature and consequences of their actions, and treating them as mere children undermines justice for the victims. They claim that involving them in the adult criminal system will act as a deterrent and signal that serious crimes will not be excused because of age alone.

Arguments Against Lowering the Age Threshold

On the other hand, critics argue that lowering the age threshold is a traditional move rather than a well-reasoned policy.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee reviewing the 2015 Bill warned against relying solely on FIR data, as many juveniles are falsely accused, and actual convictions are very low.
NCRB data (2008–2013) showed that juvenile crimes made up only 1–1.2% of total crimes in India, with only 7% being serious offences.

During the Lok Sabha debate on the Bill, MP Shashi Tharoor argued that juveniles come from poor, illiterate, and broken families and need to be supported rather than punished.

Data from 2018 showed that a high number of juvenile offenders were:

Homeless
Lacked family care
Had poor education

Being presented in the adult justice system can strip away their chance to be reformed.

Many have also raised concerns about the subjective nature of preliminary assessments done by Juvenile Justice Boards and the poor training of child psychologists conducting the assessments. They argue that there should be reforms to strengthen the current system and ensure proper implementation.

Salil Bali v. Union of India

After the 2012 Nirbhaya case, with an accused being a juvenile, there was great public unrest, and many demanded a reduction in the age limit for juvenile offenders.

Salil Bali submitted a petition asking the Supreme Court to amend the Juvenile Justice Act and lower the age limit from 18 to 16 for heinous crimes committed. The Supreme Court refused, stating that the existing age limit was in alignment with international standards. They emphasized that the focus should be on reform rather than punishment, as children are still developing cognitively and emotionally.

Landmark Case on Reformative Justice

Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977)

The Supreme Court on May 6, 1977, introduced a pivotal shift in the judicial approach to sentencing. It emphasized reformation over punishment, especially when dealing with young offenders.

The court stated that the goal should be to provide young offenders a chance to reform rather than providing harsh punishments that may crush their futures. This judgment laid the groundwork for the modern juvenile justice approach, believing that young offenders do not deserve harsh punishments.

Conclusion

India’s Juvenile Justice system stands at a crossroads today, as the 2015 amendment was made in response to the growing concern regarding minor involvement in heinous crimes. This raises ethical and legal dilemmas about fairness.

Balancing justice for victims with empathy for children from traumatic and broken backgrounds — with no proper guidance — is a tough task.

Juveniles may commit serious crimes, but considering their cognitive and emotional development, they can’t be tried as adults without understanding the psychological and socio-economic reasons behind their actions. Treating them as adults and giving harsh punishment without understanding the cause can lead to repeat offenses.

We must focus on:

Proper psychological assessments
Effective rehabilitation programs
Providing support and care

The path towards a better Juvenile Justice System lies in compassion, evidence, and the belief that children can be changed when given the right support at the right time.

Bibliography

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India. India Code
Humanizing Sentencing: Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh – CaseMine
Salil Bali v. Union of India – CaseMine
Juvenile Justice Systems – Lawctopus
Juvenile Delinquency: An Overview – Quest Journals
Will Reduction in Juvenile Age Help Reduce Crime Rate? – The Hindu
Role of Judiciary in Shaping Juvenile Justice System – LiveLaw
The Juvenile Justice System in India: A Brief Overview – SPR Foundation