A decade after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reshaped India’s approach to child offenders, a new proposal has reopened an old debate on punishment versus reform. A Private Member’s Bill introduced in December 2025 seeks to lower the age threshold for trying children as adults from 16 to 14 years for “heinous” offences — crimes carrying a minimum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment. If enacted, this change would mark a decisive shift away from rehabilitation and towards retribution in India’s juvenile justice framework.
What the 2015 law changed
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 introduced the controversial “transfer system” in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. Departing from the traditional child-centric philosophy, it allowed children aged 16–18 accused of heinous offences to be assessed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and potentially tried as adults.
This preliminary assessment focuses on the child’s mental capacity, ability to understand the consequences of the offence, and circumstances in which the crime was allegedly committed. If transferred, the case is heard by a Children’s Court, which may either try the child as an adult or retain juvenile procedures.
Notably, this punitive shift was introduced despite objections from the Parliamentary Standing Committee, which had warned that it violated domestic constitutional principles and international child rights standards.
Why the ‘transfer system’ is inherently flawed
Indian juvenile justice has historically rested on the principle that children are developmentally distinct from adults and are more amenable to reform. The transfer system undermines this foundation by introducing an artificial classification among children based on an assessment of “mental capacity” and “knowledge of consequences”.
In practice, the system has proven deeply problematic. There are no scientifically validated tools capable of retrospectively determining whether a child possessed adult-like cognitive capacity at the time of the alleged offence. As a result, assessments often rely on subjective and legally irrelevant factors — such as whether the child appeared remorseful, fearful during arrest, or could articulate that the act was “wrong”.
This has led to similarly placed children facing starkly different outcomes, driven not by the nature of the offence alone but by personal background, uneven assessment practices, and discretion exercised by different JJBs. The result is arbitrariness, procedural confusion, and discrimination — outcomes fundamentally at odds with the rehabilitative aims of juvenile justice.
What lowering the age to 14 would mean
The proposed amendment seeks to extend this flawed mechanism to children as young as 14. Doing so would institutionalise arbitrariness at an even more vulnerable stage of childhood. Adolescence is marked by rapid neurological, emotional, and social development, and younger adolescents are even less equipped to navigate the adversarial and punitive adult criminal justice system.
Lowering the threshold effectively erodes the distinction between childhood and adulthood, replacing a welfare-oriented approach with one centred on punishment, deterrence, and moral blame.
Do crime statistics justify the proposal?
The Bill claims that serious crimes by 14–16 year olds are on the rise and that harsher treatment is needed to ensure accountability. However, official data tells a different story.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), in 2023:
- 31,365 cases were registered against Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL), accounting for just 0.5% of all crimes.
- Of the 40,036 CICLs apprehended, 79% were aged 16–18.
- Only 21% were between 12–16 years.
These figures directly contradict the claim that younger adolescents are driving serious crime trends. The data suggests that expanding adult trials to younger age groups lacks an empirical basis.
Vulnerability, not criminality, drives many cases
Many adolescents who come into conflict with the law are also children in need of care and protection. Their interaction with the justice system often reflects poverty, family breakdown, lack of schooling, abuse, or unmet welfare obligations rather than inherent criminal intent.
Lowering the age threshold risks pulling such vulnerable children deeper into punitive processes without improving the system’s ability to distinguish between culpability and social vulnerability.
The hidden costs of adult criminal processes
Exposure to adult criminal procedures has severe and lasting consequences for children. Detention disrupts education, impedes cognitive development, and imposes stigma that follows children long after legal proceedings end. The process itself is frequently traumatic, regardless of conviction or acquittal.
This concern is magnified by evidence that statutory safeguards are routinely violated — with children illegally detained in police stations or placed in adult prisons. The central problem, therefore, is not excessive leniency but systemic failure and weak accountability in protecting children’s rights.
Fixing institutions, not punishing children
By lowering the age threshold, the proposed amendment shifts attention away from what actually needs reform: early intervention, family support, education, mental health services, and robust child protection systems. Blurring the line between adolescence and adulthood undermines core child rights principles such as the best interests of the child and substantive equality before the law.
If the objective is to address serious harm meaningfully, withdrawing legal protection from children is not the solution. Strengthening institutions and addressing structural vulnerabilities is.
What to note for Prelims?
- Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 introduced the “transfer system”.
- Heinous offences: minimum punishment of seven years or more.
- Juvenile Justice Board conducts preliminary assessment.
- NCRB data shows majority of CICLs are aged 16–18.
What to note for Mains?
- Tension between retributive justice and rehabilitative juvenile justice.
- Constitutional and international standards on child rights.
- Problems of arbitrariness and inequality in the transfer system.
- Need for welfare-oriented, preventive approaches to adolescent offending.
