Introduction

India’s juvenile justice system was built on a clear and humane philosophy: children who come into conflict with the law are not miniature adults, but individuals in a formative stage of life who are more capable of reform and rehabilitation. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 marked a significant and controversial shift by introducing the so-called “transfer system”, which allows children aged 16–18 accused of heinous offences to be tried as adults after a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). Now, a Private Member’s Bill (December 2025) proposes to push this logic even further by lowering the age threshold from 16 to 14 years for heinous offences. This move would fundamentally alter the character of juvenile justice in India and represents a serious step backwards—from a system centred on care and reform to one driven increasingly by punishment and retribution.

What the Proposed Change Would Mean

• If the proposed amendment is accepted:

  • Children aged 14–15 years could be:

    • Tried in adult criminal courts

    • Sent to adult prisons

• This would:

  • Expose very young adolescents to:

    • Harsh criminal procedures

    • Stigmatising trials

    • Potentially brutal prison environments

• More importantly, it would:

  • Shift the juvenile justice system away from its foundational goals of care, rehabilitation, and reintegration

  • Move it decisively towards deterrence and punishment

Such a transformation raises deep moral, legal, and constitutional concerns.

Philosophy of Juvenile Justice

• The core idea behind juvenile justice across the world is simple:

  • Children are developmentally different from adults.

• Modern psychology and neuroscience show that:

  • Adolescents have:

    • Immature impulse control

    • Incomplete emotional regulation

    • An underdeveloped ability to assess long-term consequences

• At the same time, they are:

  • More adaptable

  • More receptive to guidance

  • More capable of reform than adults

• Therefore, any justice system dealing with children must prioritise:

  • The best interests of the child

  • Rehabilitation over retribution

  • Social reintegration over permanent exclusion

Lowering the age of adult criminal responsibility directly contradicts this philosophy.

Problems with the Existing “Transfer System”

• Under the 2015 Act, before a 16–18-year-old can be tried as an adult, the JJB must conduct a preliminary assessment of:

  • Mental capacity

  • Ability to understand the consequences of the offence

• In practice, these assessments are deeply flawed:

  • There are no standardised or scientifically robust tools for such evaluations

  • Decisions often rely on:

    • Demeanour in court

    • Perceived remorse or fear

    • Subjective impressions of maturity

• This approach:

  • Ignores well-established findings of developmental psychology

  • Produces arbitrary and unequal outcomes, depending on:

    • The Board

    • The judge

    • The social background of the child

Instead of delivering justice, the transfer system risks becoming a lottery of discretion.

Why Lowering the Age to 14 Is Even More Problematic

• There is no credible scientific framework to determine “adult-like” criminal capacity in 14–15-year-olds.

• Early adolescence is:

  • A period of intense cognitive, emotional, and social change

  • Not a stage at which stable judgement and impulse control can be assumed

• Lowering the age would:

  • Expand an already problematic discretionary system to a much more vulnerable age group

  • Institutionalise punishment at an even earlier stage of childhood

  • Normalize the idea that children should be treated as criminals rather than as individuals in need of care and correction

Data vs Perception: Is Youth Crime Really the Justification?

• The proposal is often justified by the claim that:

  • There is a rise in serious crimes committed by younger adolescents

• However, NCRB data (2023) tells a different story:

  • Children in conflict with law (CICL) constitute only about 0.5% of total crimes.

  • The majority of apprehended children are in the 16–18 age group.

  • The 14–16 age group is not the primary driver of serious crime.

• This suggests that:

  • The policy is being driven more by public anxiety and sensational cases than by evidence-based analysis.

Law made in response to fear rather than facts is rarely good law.

The Harmful Impact of Adult Criminal Processes on Children

• Subjecting children to the adult criminal justice system has severe and long-lasting consequences:

  • Detention disrupts:

    • Education

    • Emotional development

    • Social ties

  • Criminal trials impose:Stigma, Psychological trauma, permanent “criminal” identity

• There is also credible evidence of:

  • Illegal detention of children in police stations

  • Placement of juveniles in adult prisons despite legal safeguards

• Instead of correcting behaviour, such exposure often:

  • Hardens children

  • Pushes them deeper into cycles of marginalisation and conflict with the law

Real Causes of Adolescent Offending

• Most adolescent offending does not arise from inherent criminality.

• It is closely linked to:

  • Poverty and inequality

  • Family breakdown and abuse

  • School dropout and lack of opportunity

  • Untreated mental health and substance abuse issues

• These are systemic and social failures, not moral failures of children.

• Punishing children for the failures of society is neither just nor effective.

Constitutional and Child Rights Concerns

• Lowering the age of adult criminal liability would:

  • Violate the best interests of the child principle

  • Undermine equality before the law, since vulnerable children would be disproportionately affected

  • Conflict with India’s broader child rights framework and international commitments

• It also dangerously:

  • Blurs the moral and legal line between childhood and adulthood

  • Redefines childhood itself as a potentially criminal category

Way Forward: Fix the System, Not the Child

• The correct response to serious juvenile offending is not harsher punishment, but better systems:

  • Strengthen juvenile justice institutions and observation homes

  • Improve the capacity, training, and resources of Juvenile Justice Boards

  • Ensure timely, high-quality psychological and social assessments

  • Invest in:

    • Education

    • Mental health services

    • Family and community support

• Accountability should be:

  • Real and meaningful

  • But rooted in supportive and reformative measures, not in early criminalisation

Conclusion

Lowering the age of juvenility to 14 for heinous offences would represent a profound shift away from the civilised and constitutional foundations of juvenile justice. It would replace care with coercion, reform with retribution, and evidence with fear. Children who come into conflict with the law are not society’s enemies—they are often its most visible victims. A just and confident society does not punish its children into becoming better citizens; it invests in systems that help them grow out of their mistakes. The answer lies in fixing institutions and social conditions, not in redefining childhood as a crime.