Recent incidents involving minors accused of grave offenses have reignited scrutiny of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, raising questions about age thresholds, legal protections, and the balance between rehabilitation and deterrence. Under the current framework, any individual below the age of 18 is considered a juvenile and is governed by the provisions of the JJ Act, not the Indian Penal Code. This law emphasizes reformative justice over retribution, seeking to reintegrate minors into society through rehabilitation. This aligns with India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which upholds child-sensitive approaches to justice systems. In one case, an offender was accused of alleged sexual misconduct on a woman co-passenger inside an auto. Initially named in media reports from the spate of condemnations by CSOs, a juvenile court raised Cain over violation of JJ Act and filed complaints about naming the offender, supposedly legally a minor. Media outlets were asked to issue explanations. However, some CSOs challenged the shield of juvenility and demanded that the offender’s age undergo medical examination and if he was 17 then he should be tried as an adult offender.In many cases, critics highlight a crucial gap-when juveniles commit crimes that are especially violent or calculated, the presumption of diminished capacity may not hold. The 2012 Delhi gang-rape case remains a stark inflection point. One of the offenders, months shy of turning 18, was tried under the JJ Act and released after three years, a move that sparked public fury and calls for legislative overhaul.The legislative response came in the form of the 2015 amendment to the JJ Act. It introduced a provision permitting juveniles aged 16 to 18 to be tried as adults for heinous offenses-those punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more. The process hinges on the discretion of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which must evaluate the minor’s cognitive and physical ability to commit the crime, awareness of its consequences, and the surrounding circumstances. Should the Board rule in favor of an adult trial, the case is escalated to a Children’s Court. Still, the law prohibits sentencing such juveniles to death or life imprisonment without release.This subjectivity, however, introduces new challenges. Assessing a young person’s mental and emotional maturity is inherently complex and can vary widely. Neuroscience research indicates that the human brain, particularly areas regulating judgment and impulse control, continues to develop well into the twenties. This evidence supports the view that minors may lack the capacity for full culpability. On the other hand, critics assert that chronological age should not obscure an individual’s demonstrated intent or awareness. Calls for a more calibrated approach have grown louder, especially as concerns mount about the adequacy of rehabilitation infrastructure. The success of the JJ Act relies heavily on the quality and reach of observation homes and reformation programs-many of which are under-resourced or inconsistent. As India continues to grapple with juvenile justice, the tension between safeguarding childhood and ensuring accountability remains unresolved, demanding constant legal and societal introspection.
Friday, July 4, 2025