The Hindu Editorial Analysis
22 January 2026
Lowering the age of juvenility for crimes is a step back
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition, Page no.-8 )
Topic: GS2 : Issues relating to development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health, Education
Context
The Private Member’s Bill could reshape India’s juvenile justice system, influencing fairness and rehabilitation.
Introduction
Nearly a decade after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reshaped India’s juvenile justice framework by introducing the “transfer system”, a Private Member’s Bill introduced in December 2025 seeks to amend the law by lowering the age threshold from 16 to 14 years for children accused of heinous offences—defined as crimes carrying a minimum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment or more. If enacted, the amendment could expose 14–15-year-olds to adult criminal trials and incarceration, undermining the core principles of care, rehabilitation, and reintegration in favour of retributive justice.
Philosophical and Legal Flaws in the Transfer System
- Indian juvenile justice is founded on the belief that children are developmentally distinct from adults and capable of reform.
- After the 2012 Delhi gang rape, the JJ Act, 2015 adopted a more punitive approach by introducing the transfer system.
- Under this system, 16–18-year-olds accused of heinous offences undergo a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to decide adult trial eligibility.
- This shift lacked support from empirical evidence and was opposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, which found it inconsistent with domestic and international juvenile justice standards.
Arbitrariness and Risks of Expansion
- The transfer system has led to procedural confusion, subjective decision-making, and arbitrariness.
- Assessments focus on vague notions like mental capacity or understanding consequences, diverting attention from developmental realities and social context.
- There are no reliable tools to determine adult-level criminal capacity or retrospectively assess a child’s mental state at the time of offence.
- Decisions often rely on irrelevant factors such as demeanour during arrest or expressions of fear or remorse.
- As a result, similarly placed children face unequal outcomes, undermining rehabilitation and reinforcing discrimination.
- Extending this system to children as young as 14 risks entrenching institutional arbitrariness at a far more vulnerable stage of childhood.
Claims of Rising Adolescent Crime and the Data
- The Bill argues that serious offences by 14–16-year-olds are increasing and that lowering the age threshold is needed for deterrence and accountability.
- NCRB data (2023) shows that cases involving Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) accounted for only 0.5% of total crimes.
- Of all CICLs apprehended, 79% were aged 16–18, while only 21% were between 12–16, contradicting claims that younger adolescents are driving serious crime.
Structural Vulnerability and Systemic Failure
- Adolescent offending often stems from poverty, neglect, and social inequality, not inherent criminal intent.
- Many CICLs are simultaneously children in need of care and protection, reflecting unmet welfare obligations.
- Lowering the age threshold would deepen children’s exposure to punitive justice, without improving the system’s ability to distinguish culpability from vulnerability.
- Contact with adult criminal processes disrupts education, harms cognitive and psychological development, and creates lasting stigma.
- Despite legal safeguards, children continue to face illegal detention and placement in adult prisons, highlighting that the real issue lies in systemic failures and weak accountability, not in the age threshold.
Fix the System, Not the Child
- The Bill pushes the juvenile justice framework toward punishment at an earlier age, instead of prioritising prevention and support.
- It diverts attention from the need for early intervention, stronger family and educational systems, and accessible mental health care.
- Blurring the line between adolescence and adulthood weakens core child rights principles, including the best interests of the child and equality before the law.
- Meaningful reform requires systemic strengthening, not the criminalisation of childhood vulnerability.
Conclusion
If the aim is to address serious harm in a meaningful way, the solution lies not in stripping children of legal protection, but in strengthening the institutions and community systems designed to support them before harm occurs. Treating systemic failures as grounds for harsher punishment of Children in Conflict with the Law (CICLs) does not resolve underlying issues; it simply shifts the burden onto those least capable of bearing its consequences.