Drawing the Line at Eighteen: Understanding the Quasi-Adult Paradox in India’s Juvenile Transfer Regime

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 allows children aged 16–18 accused of “heinous offences” to be subjected to a preliminary assessment under Section 15 and subsequently tried as adults. This article argues that the transfer mechanism under Sections 15, 18(3), and 19 is constitutionally infirm under Article 14 (arbitrary classification), Article 15(3) (inversion of child protection), and Article 21 (dignity and proportionality). Delving into the "maturity gap" in adolescent neuroscience and the "reactive" legislative history since the Nirbhaya case, this article demonstrates that the 16–18 transfer regime creates an untenable category of “quasi-adults.” Referring to the insights from the NCRB data, the article highlights how the "Preliminary Assessment" is not a neutral tool but a site where social capital determines "justice." Furthermore, the author argues that the caste-class nexus and its accompanied institutional bias prevents India from investing in a universal restorative justice model, though such models exist in selected cities of India. Drawing from the Steinberg "Braking System" model, the paper argues that the JJ Act punishes a biological incapacity as a criminal choice. Referring to recent jurisprudence from Barun Chandra Thakur (2022) and CCL K v. State (2025), the article proposes that 18 must be affirmed as the inviolable age threshold to resolve statutory, constitutional, and international law incoherence.