UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2 – Laws, Institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection of vulnerable sections
Introduction
Lowering the age of juvenility weakens the core philosophy of child justice. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 introduced the transfer system, changing India’s reform-oriented juvenile framework. In December 2025, a Private Member’s Bill proposed reducing the age threshold from 16 to 14 years for heinous offences, defined as crimes carrying a minimum punishment of seven years or more. If enacted, this would expose younger children to adult criminal trials and prisons, eroding principles of care, rehabilitation, and reintegration while prioritising punishment.
Understanding the ‘Transfer System’ under the JJ Act, 2015
Developmental philosophy of juvenile justice: The juvenile justice system is based on the belief that children are developmentally different from adults and are capable of reform, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
Punitive shift under the JJ Act, 2015: After the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, the Act introduced the transfer system, marking a move away from a welfare-based approach toward punishment.
Scope and application of the system: The mechanism allows children aged 16–18 years, accused of heinous offences carrying a minimum seven-year punishment, to be considered for adult criminal trials.
Arguments in Favour of the Transfer System
- Criminal accountability: Supporters argue that children aged 16–18 years possess sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of heinous crimes like murder or rape. Extending adult trial ensures they are not shielded by the maximum three-year reformative limit.
- Deterrent effect: The provision aims to discourage serious juvenile delinquency by removing the assumption of light punishment. It seeks to prevent intentional misuse of juvenile protection.
- Victim justice: The system attempts to balance the rights of the offender with the rights of the victim. It emphasises proportional punishment in cases involving grave harm.
- Capacity assessment: The Act mandates a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board. This includes evaluating mental and physical capacity, understanding of consequences, and surrounding circumstances.
- Balanced approach: The transfer system combines retributive and reformative justice. It retains safeguards by prohibiting the death penalty and mandatory life imprisonment without release.
- Place of safety: Transferred children are sent to a place of safety instead of adult prisons. A further evaluation after the age of 21 years decides continued incarceration or release.
Arguments against the “Transfer System”
- Absence of empirical foundation: The transfer system was introduced without empirical evidence showing that adult trials deter juvenile crime.
- Lack of scientific assessment tools: There are no reliable psychological or medical tools to measure adult-level mental capacity in children.
- Impossibility of retrospective evaluation: Mental capacity at the time of offence cannot be accurately assessed later, making such judgments unreliable.
- Shift from development to blame: The framework diverts attention from developmental stage and lived circumstances toward abstract criminal culpability.
- Weak behavioural indicators: Decisions rely on factors such as fear, repentance, or awareness of right and wrong, which do not reflect maturity.
- High subjectivity: Juvenile Justice Boards exercise wide discretion without uniform national standards.
- Unequal outcomes: Similarly placed children face different results due to procedure, discretion, and personal background.
- Artificial classification of childhood: The system divides children based on assessment outcomes rather than actual conduct, weakening rehabilitation.
- Risk of expansion to younger age: Lowering the threshold to 14 years institutionalises arbitrariness at a more vulnerable stage of childhood.
Way Forward
- Fix institutional failure instead of lowering age: Reforms should address gaps in the juvenile justice system rather than withdrawing legal protection from children.
- Use evidence-based policymaking: NCRB 2023 data shows only 31,365 cases against children in conflict with law, forming just 0.5% of total crimes, weakening the justification for age reduction.
- Strengthen early intervention mechanisms: Timely support can prevent children from entering the criminal justice system.
- Address structural vulnerability: Many children come into conflict with law due to poverty, neglect, and inequality rather than criminal intent.
- Invest in family, education, and mental health support: Strengthening these systems reduces long-term vulnerability and repeat offending.
- Preserve rehabilitation and reintegration: Reform, not punishment, must remain the central objective of juvenile justice.
- Ensure enforcement of safeguards: Illegal detention in police stations and adult prisons must be prevented through strict accountability.
- Uphold child rights principles: The best interests of the child and equality before law must guide all legislative reform.
Conclusion
Lowering the age of juvenility expands punishment without supporting evidence. It deepens arbitrariness, weakens rehabilitation, and ignores crime data showing limited juvenile involvement. The real failure lies in institutions, not in childhood protection. Strengthening welfare systems, enforcing safeguards, and investing in early support offer a more just and sustainable response to serious harm.
For detailed information on JUVENILE JUSTICE LAW read this article here
Question for practice:
Examine whether lowering the age of juvenility for heinous crimes under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 strengthens accountability or undermines the principles of child justice.
Source: The Hindu
