Context:

• A decade after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 or the JJ Act, introduced the “transfer system,” a new Private Member’s Bill seeks to lower the age threshold for trying juveniles as adults.
• The proposed amendment would allow children aged 14–15, accused of “heinous” offences, to face adult criminal trials and prison, raising concerns about weakening rehabilitation-focused principles in favour of punishment.
• This article highlights why the proposal to lower the age of juvenility for heinous offences marks a regressive shift in India’s justice system, undermining rehabilitation, equality, and child-centred principles without empirical justification.

Juvenile Justice and the Transfer System

• India’s juvenile justice framework is rooted in the belief that children differ developmentally from adults and are capable of reform.
• However, after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, the JJ Act, 2015 introduced the “transfer system”, allowing 16–18-year-olds accused of heinous offences to be assessed for adult trials.
• Punitive Shift Without Evidence
  • The introduction of the transfer system lacked empirical support.
  • It was opposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, which found it inconsistent with domestic and international juvenile justice standards.
• Arbitrariness in Assessments
  • Preliminary assessments by Juvenile Justice Boards focus on abstract notions like “mental capacity” and “understanding consequences,” rather than developmental stages or lived realities.
  • No reliable tools exist to measure such capacities retrospectively.
• Inconsistent and Discriminatory Outcomes
  • Decisions often hinge on subjective factors—such as remorse or awareness of wrongdoing—leading to unequal treatment of similarly placed children.
  • Outcomes depend more on discretion than conduct.
• Risks of Expanding the Transfer System
  • Lowering the age threshold to 14 would extend arbitrariness to younger children, undermining rehabilitation, reinforcing inequality, and weakening the core principles of care, reform, and reintegration in juvenile justice.

Adolescent Crime: Claims vs Evidence

• Rising Crime Narrative Questioned - The proposed Bill claims a rise in serious crimes by 14–16-year-olds to justify lowering the age threshold. However, official data does not support this assertion.
• What NCRB Data Shows - In 2023, cases involving Children in Conflict with the Law formed just 0.5% of total crimes.
  • Nearly 79% of apprehended children were aged 16–18, while only 21% were between 12–16, contradicting claims about younger adolescents driving crime.
• Structural Vulnerability, Not Criminality - Many adolescents enter the justice system due to poverty, neglect, and unmet welfare needs. Often, they are both in conflict with the law and in need of care and protection.
• Risks of Lowering the Age Threshold - Reducing the age limit would pull vulnerable children into harsher punitive processes without improving the system’s ability to distinguish vulnerability from culpability.
• Harmful Impact of Adult Criminal Processes - Exposure to adult trials disrupts education, harms cognitive development, creates stigma, and causes psychological trauma.
  • Illegal detention in police stations and adult prisons shows systemic failure, not the need for harsher laws.

Prioritising Reform Over Punishment

• The Bill pushes juvenile justice toward earlier punishment, shifting focus away from early intervention, family support, education, mental health care, and systemic reform.
• Diluting child-centred protections undermines core principles of child rights.
• Addressing serious harm requires strengthening institutions and communities, not withdrawing safeguards from children least equipped to face punitive consequences.

Conclusion

• Lowering the age of juvenility prioritises punishment over protection, ignoring evidence, developmental science and systemic failures, and risks harming vulnerable children instead of strengthening institutions meant to support them.