The treatment of children in conflict with the law has always raised important questions of morality, policy, and justice. In India, the juvenile justice system is built on the principle that children are not fully mature in judgment or responsible for their actions in the same way as adults. They require care, protection, and reform rather than harsh punishment. However, in recent years, there has been a debate over whether juveniles committing heinous crimes should face retributive justice, similar to adults. This tension between the reformative and retributive approaches lies at the heart of India’s juvenile justice framework.
Historical Background of Juvenile Justice in India
The idea that juveniles should be treated differently from adults is not new. Colonial India saw early legislation such as the Apprentices Act, 1850 and Reformatory Schools Act, 1897, which reflected a paternalistic approach. Post-independence, the Children Act of 1960 and later the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 consolidated this principle.
The most significant reform came with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which was enacted to align Indian law with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), ratified by India in 1992. It emphasized rehabilitation, social reintegration, and care, rather than punitive measures.
Constitutional and International Framework
The Constitution of India provides strong foundations for juvenile justice. Article 15(3) allows special provisions for children. Article 39(e) and (f) directs the State to protect children from exploitation and provide opportunities for their healthy development. Article 45 emphasizes early childhood care and education.
Internationally, instruments such as the UNCRC, the Beijing Rules (1985), and the Havana Rules (1990) stress rehabilitation and proportionality in juvenile justice. India’s legislation incorporates these principles, reflecting its commitment to child rights.
The Reformative Approach
The reformative approach treats crime by a juvenile as a consequence of social, economic, and psychological factors. Instead of punishing the child, the focus is on providing counseling, education, vocational training, and opportunities for rehabilitation. The aim is reintegration into society as a responsible citizen.
Courts have consistently upheld this view. In Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court directed that juveniles should not be kept in jails and emphasized the need for separate institutions focused on care and reform. Similarly, in Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2011), the Court stressed proper implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act and the creation of child welfare committees across states.
The reformative approach is rooted in the belief that children are capable of change and that society benefits more from rehabilitating a child than from punishing them.
The Retributive Approach and the Nirbhaya Case
Despite the reformative emphasis, public opinion shifted after the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case (Nirbhaya case). One of the accused was a juvenile, and because of the then-prevailing law, he was tried under the juvenile system, receiving a maximum sentence of three years in a special home. This sparked outrage, with many questioning whether juveniles who commit heinous crimes should be shielded from harsher punishment.
Responding to this sentiment, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 introduced a significant change. It allowed children aged 16 to 18 years accused of heinous offences to be tried as adults if the Juvenile Justice Board, after a preliminary assessment, found them mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions. This marked a shift toward a retributive model for certain categories of offences.
Criticism of the Retributive Shift
The 2015 amendment has been criticized on several grounds. First, it arguably violates the principle of presumption of immaturity for juveniles, enshrined in international conventions. Second, scientific studies on adolescent psychology show that brain development, particularly in areas controlling impulse and judgment, continues into the early twenties. This means juveniles may act without full awareness of consequences.
Moreover, critics argue that harsher punishments fail to address root causes like poverty, abuse, neglect, and lack of education. Retribution may satisfy public anger but risks destroying a child’s chance of reformation. Internationally, India has faced questions over whether the amendment is compatible with its obligations under the UNCRC.
Balancing Reformative and Retributive Models
India’s current framework attempts a balance. For most offences, juveniles are treated under the reformative model, with emphasis on care, counseling, and rehabilitation. Only in heinous crimes committed by 16–18 year-olds is there a possibility of trial as adults. Even then, the Juvenile Justice Board is tasked with assessing mental capacity, maturity, and circumstances before transferring the case.
Courts have recognized the delicate balance. In Kumar v. State of Delhi (2018), the Delhi High Court reiterated that the decision to try a juvenile as an adult must not be mechanical but based on careful assessment. The emphasis remains that adult trials should be the exception, not the rule.
Institutional Challenges
Even with a progressive law, challenges persist. Observation homes and special juvenile institutions often face overcrowding, poor infrastructure, and lack of trained staff. Instead of reformation, children may face abuse, neglect, or exposure to hardened criminals.
Implementation of child welfare schemes is uneven across states. Delays in setting up Child Welfare Committees and Juvenile Justice Boards undermine the system’s effectiveness. Without investment in infrastructure, reformative goals remain theoretical.
Socio-Economic Factors and Juvenile Crime
Juvenile delinquency in India is closely linked with poverty, illiteracy, family breakdown, and substance abuse. Many juveniles in conflict with the law come from marginalized backgrounds where they face neglect and exploitation. Addressing these root causes through education, vocational training, and family support systems is crucial for reducing juvenile crime.
Conclusion
The juvenile justice system in India reflects an ongoing struggle between two philosophies: reformation and retribution. While international law and constitutional values support the reformative model, public pressure in cases of heinous crimes has tilted the law toward retributive justice for certain juveniles.
The challenge lies in ensuring that this shift does not erode child rights or undermine the rehabilitative purpose of juvenile justice. Courts and Juvenile Justice Boards must exercise caution in transferring juveniles to adult trials, ensuring it remains an exception rather than the norm.