INTRODUCTION
The child’s rights are the foundation of juvenile justice. In addition to making custody a last-resort punishment for the shortest amount of time while considering the impact on the victim and community, juvenile justice places a strong emphasis on prevention. Many “children in conflict with the law” are socioeconomic victims who are deprived of their rights to care, protection, shelter, health care, and education. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (henceforth referred to as J.J.A.2015) is the subject of this article’s critical analysis. Despite multiple amendments in 2000, 2006, and 2015, the authors believe that the Act still warrants serious consideration. It is a well-known fact that laws must occasionally be modified to reflect societal demands. The widespread involvement of minors in horrible crimes cannot be solved by merely lowering the juvenile age from 18 to 16, even in extreme circumstances. The quick involvement of children in criminal activity is the reason the authors chose this subject. Following the tragic Delhi Gang rape case, there was global outcry to take significant action and stop similar horrible crimes in the future. Surprisingly, a minor—that is, a 17-year-old—was the accused individual most actively involved in a violent gang rape1. Law blindly believes in a Latin phrase i.e. “Doli incapax” which means a child is incapable to commit a crime. But nowadays children are getting matured earlier day by day. It varies from child to child and age to age whether a child is mature or not. The authors will research a child’s maturity age, its characteristics, and whether a child’s age or maturity will exempt him from criminal liability. Under such circumstances, it is vital to examine the various facets of the current juvenile justice system, including its flaws and the necessary changes.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The first piece of legislation addressing children in legal trouble was the Apprentices Act of 1850. The United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child on November 20, 1959, during a plenary session that included representatives from 78 nations. One of the parties to the declaration was India. The Children Bill was introduced in the Parliament that same year. The first model central legislation on the topic was passed in 1960. The Children Act of 1960 forbade the imposition of the death penalty or a sentence of imprisonment on children, as well as the detention of children in jails or stations. It also established two adjudicatory bodies to handle children in conflict with the law and children in need of care and protection2. In Sheela Barse v. Union of India1, decided a year later in 1986, the Supreme Court mandated that all States implement a delivery system appropriate for juvenile offenders, and that any such enforcements must be reported back to the court. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (henceforth referred to as J.J.A.1986) was passed by the Parliament that same year. But this Act was only in place for a few years before the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act, 2000 (henceforth referred to as J.J.A.2000) was passed by the Parliament. This act, in contrast to J.J.A. 1986, abandoned the sex-discriminatory definition of juvenile and defined a child as any individual who is under the age of eighteen, regardless of the gender. Keep in mind the standards of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the international consensus that 18 is the legal age of criminal responsibility. We now have J.J.A., 2015, which was passed in response to public pressure following Nirbhaya’s horrific gang rape case, as this Act is constantly changing due to flaws in it.
CONCEPT OF JUVENILE
“Juvenile3” generally means a person who is not old enough to be considered an adult. However, in the context of ICJ, “Juvenile” means any person defined as a juvenile in any member state or by the rules of the Interstate Commission. Before discussing the different crimes that juveniles commit, it is important to define what constitutes a juvenile. To put it simply, a juvenile is a child who has not reached the maturity level necessary to distinguish between right and wrong. According to the nation’s legal system, a juvenile is a minor who has not reached a certain age at which he can be held accountable for his crimes just like an adult A juvenile is defined as a child under the age of eighteen in the J.J.A. 20154.
It states that, with the exception of minors between the ages of 16 and 18 and those who have committed heinous crimes, a juvenile should not be treated as an adult even if he is involved in any criminal acts for the purpose of trial and punishment in a court of law.
It implies that the court has the authority to determine whether or not a minor should be treated like an adult, but only in the previously mentioned exceptional circumstances. The J.J.A. 2015 recently introduced this amendment. In India, a juvenile is therefore treated differently from an adult in terms of any crimes he may have committed.
CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
Child5 in conflict with law” refers to a minor who has not reached the age of eighteen on the day of the alleged or proven offense. Therefore, it is evident from this definition that a child under the age of eighteen will be regarded as a minor. The Indian Constitution’s “Fundamental Rights” chapter contains specific provisions for children’s overall development. Especially Article 15(3) states that “nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from making any special provision for women and children6. This clause led to the creation of the Juvenile Justice Act. Children are also shielded from criminal liability on the grounds of infancy by Sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). These provisions are undoubtedly for the children’s betterment and future prospects, but now is a good time to consider children who are involved in violent crimes; surprisingly, these children are juveniles, meaning they are under the age of eighteen. This minority has the effect of completely exempting minors from criminal liability without taking into account the seriousness of the offense, the juvenile’s maturity, or his behaviour. Therefore, the law occasionally forces us to consider whether the law is favourable to juveniles.
THE DELHI GANG RAPE CASE AND ITS IMPACT ON JUVENILE JUSTICE
Everyone was shocked to learn of the horrific Delhi gang rape case that claimed the life of a 23-year-old girl. For such a horrible crime, there was a great deal of agitation, rage, and criticism from all over the world. All of the accused in this crime received the death penalty, with the exception of a juvenile, who was 17 years old at the time of the crime. Three years after his conviction and sentencing, the 21-year-old juvenile was released under the J.J.A. 2000 on December 20. He was completely shielded from the death penalty as a juvenile by the J.J.A. 2000’s provisions. The juvenile was fully aware of what he was doing, and it appears that he was mature enough to understand the repercussions of his actions if we examine his behaviour closely. It was completely impractical to convict him for just three years in these circumstances.
The Indian Parliament made a number of changes to sexual offenses against women after considering Nirbhaya’s horrific rape case and the outrage of the global public. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) now defines rape differently; mere penetration is no longer a necessary component. Rape would be committed even if someone forced a woman to have sex by putting anything in her vagina or putting their mouth there.
Additionally, Maneka Gandhi, Minister of Women and Child Development, introduced the Juvenile Justice Bill 2015 to lower the criminal responsibility age for young offenders. The age of criminal responsibility was reduced from 18 to 16 years old by this bill, which is now an Act, but only in extraordinary circumstances. It was clear that the public’s growing opposition to the release of the young person found guilty in the gang rape and murder of 23-year-old Nirbhaya in the capital on December 16, 2012, was the reason behind the Bill’s hurried passage. However, the question now is whether merely reducing the age of juvenile offenders from 18 to 16 will actually aid in preventing heinous crimes committed by juveniles. There should be a response to the question.
The age of criminal responsibility was reduced from 18 to 16 years old by this bill, which is now an Act, but only in extraordinary circumstances. It was clear that the public’s growing opposition to the release of the young person found guilty in the gang rape and murder of 23-year-old Nirbhaya in the capital on December 16, 2012, was the reason behind the Bill’s hurried passage. However, the question now is whether merely reducing the age of juvenile offenders from 18 to 16 will actually aid in preventing heinous crimes committed by juveniles. There should be a response to the question7.
NECESSITY OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015
The current Act, J.J.A., 2015, allows children between the ages of 16 and 18 who are accused of committing heinous crimes—that is, crimes that carry a sentence of seven years or more in prison—to be tried and sentenced as adults, mocking both the Indian Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The new Act is a step backward in the history of children’s rights in India compared to 150 years ago. Even the Justice J.S. Varma Committee declined to suggest any modifications to juvenile justice legislation, including those pertaining to sexual offenses. Because it would violate Arts. 14 and 15(3) of the Indian Constitution of 1949, respectively, there was no need to subject minors to a different or adult legal system.
DRAWBACKS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015
• This Act may exacerbate the issue of juvenile crime and produce more seasoned offenders by permitting juveniles to be tried as adults for serious crimes.
• This Act erroneously presumes that minors are capable of being tried as adults
According to some definitions, heinous offenses are those that carry a sentence of more than seven years in prison. Juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18 may be tried as adults for at least 46 offenses. Juveniles may be tried as adults under the NDPS Act, MOCCA Act, etc., but one is only considering murder and rape.
• It should be mentioned that property-based offenses like theft, criminal trespass, and housebreaking account for the majority of juvenile arrests. Among them, rape and murder are extremely rare.
• Thus, it would be against international norms and the constitutional guarantee of equality to subject children to the adult criminal justice system.
• Furthermore, the minimum age of criminal responsibility has not been specified in this Act.
Since there hasn’t been a significant rise in the number of crimes committed by children, the empirical data doesn’t indicate that there is a pressing need to implement the principle of excluding some children from the reformatory system. When the policy of excluding juveniles who commit heinous crimes was implemented in the United States in 1996, the country’s juvenile crime rate was significantly higher. Out of a lakh, juveniles committed about 8,000 crimes. In India, the idea of lowering the age of juvenility by going beyond children’s rights was not prevalent.
Because the NCRB’s crime data was based on the quantity of First Information Reports (FIRs), it is not entirely trustworthy registered rather than the quantity of cases that have been proven in legal proceedings. When it comes to creating public policy, crime statistics can be misleading if they are not considered in the context of other realities. However, they can be useful in igniting a political campaign in the media. The massive public outcry that followed the juvenile offender’s release in 2012. The Delhi gang-rape case demonstrated that emotion rather than facts drove policy.8
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ON JUVENILE JUSTICE
The Seventh U.N. Congress on Prevention of Crime & Treatment of Offenders adopted the Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile Justice in September 1985 as a result of the United Nations Asia and Far East Institution’s substantial contribution in this regard. The U.N. General Assembly later approved these regulations in November 1985, and they included the following fundamental ideas:
• Juveniles in trouble with law should be provided with carefully constructed legal protection. Pretrial detention ought to be reserved for extreme circumstances. It is not appropriate to house juvenile and child offenders in a jail where they are susceptible to the malevolent influence of adult offenders.
• Unless there is no other appropriate response that will safeguard public safety and give the juvenile the chance to practice self-control, juvenile offenders shouldn’t be imprisoned.
Both individually and collectively, member nations should endeavor to provide sufficient means for every young person to anticipate a meaningful and valuable life.
NEED FOR A CHANGE
We would advise defending the children’s rights in order to safeguard their best interests. While making changes to the juvenile justice system, we must not lose sight of its fundamental goals.
Since there is a chance that a child under the age of sixteen will commit heinous crimes again, there was absolutely no need to lower the age of juvenility from eighteen to sixteen. A “child in conflict with law” should not be punished solely based on their age.
The court should also consider whether or not a child is mature enough to comprehend the repercussions of his actions. As previously mentioned, the age should have been 18 only, as specified by the J.J.A., 2000, rather than being reduced from 18 to 16.
Determining the age of criminal responsibility becomes a challenging task as children grow older every day.
In these situations, we would recommend that a child be punished more severely if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed a crime in a very barbaric manner and it falls under the rarest of rare cases. The primary accused in Nirbhaya’s case ought to have received a sentence of more than three years in prison, along with hard labor. Because he was able to attack and rape her, he was also able to endure hard labor and a harsh prison sentence. In these situations, the accused should not be treated leniently.
Even if a “child in conflict with law” commits a heinous crime, he shouldn’t be tried as an adult because if we keep him with hardened criminals, he might become a hard criminal in the future. Instead, we would recommend adding special provisions to J.J.A. 2015 that would enable the Juvenile Justice Boards to impose severe punishments in the rarest of cases, followed by the child’s rehabilitation side by side.
The J.J.A. 2015 already established special homes for “children in conflict with law,” where they can be detained for years. As a result, there is absolutely no need to send young people to prisons like seasoned offenders. During his stay in a special home, such a “child in conflict with law” will be assigned some labor-intensive tasks to help him atone for his actions. Additionally, the necessary actions must be taken to educate him exclusively in a special home. Additionally, the “child in conflict with law” should be divided based on their age and the type of offense they committed.
CONCLUSION
In enacting the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the legislature appears to have overlooked the Act’s primary objective of rehabilitation. Merely reducing the age of juvenility from 18 to 16 does not offer a realistic or effective solution to the problem of juvenile delinquency. It is pertinent to note that the Nirbhaya case occurred prior to the enactment of the 2015 Act, which was introduced as a response to that incident. The authors contend that a minor involved in such a grave offence should have been subjected to a more appropriate and proportionate response rather than being released after a short period of detention.
One must also question whether the age of juvenility would be further lowered to 15 if a 15-year-old were to commit a similar heinous crime in the future. It is noteworthy that several countries have set a lower age of criminal responsibility compared to India, often in response to higher rates of juvenile crime. Nevertheless, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was passed without adequate regard for international standards on children’s rights, which are also protected under the Indian Constitution. The Act faced strong criticism from social workers and child rights organisations immediately upon its enactment. As children represent the nation’s most valuable resource, it is imperative that their rights are safeguarded and they are provided with every opportunity for reform and development.
*****
Footnotes
1. Article by Atul S. Jaybhaye, Revisiting Juvenile Justice in India: A Study on Juvenile Justice, Manupatra, https://www.manupatra.com
2. 3 SCC 596 (1989)
3. Interstate Commission for Juveniles
4. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
5. S2(13) Ibid
6. P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India 35 (15th ed., Universal Law Publ’g)
7. Jhuma Sen, supra, at 15.
8. Sagnik Datta, Government into Recreationary Ideas, Frontline, Jan. 22, 2026, at 25…