Juvenile justice, rooted in the principle of restorative rather than retributive punishment, acknowledges that children possess a distinct psychological and moral makeup which merits differential treatment. The Indian juvenile justice system has witnessed significant evolution from the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [hereinafter, “JJ Act, 2015”]. This legislation codifies rights-based principles in line with international treaties such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION: WHO IS A JUVENILE?
Section 2(12) of the JJ Act, 2015 defines a “child” as a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. A “child in conflict with law” under Section 2(13) is one who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteen years on the date of commission of such offence.
The Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand1 clarified that the date relevant for determining whether the individual is a juvenile is the date of the alleged offence, not the date of trial.
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING JUVENILITY
- Inqiury before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 empowers the JJB to make a prima facie determination of age. The following evidentiary hierarchy is adopted:
1. Birth Certificate from the school (or matriculation certificate);
2. Birth certificate issued by a municipal authority;
3. Age determination via ossification test (medical examination) if above documents are unavailable.
In Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, the Supreme Court held that the aforementioned method of age determination applies even in criminal trials outside the juvenile framework, particularly where the accused claims juvenility at a later stage.
- Claim of Juvenility at any Stage
Under Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015, a claim of juvenility can be raised before any court, even after conviction. The court must conduct an inquiry and record its finding.
The judgment in Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489, held that such a claim must be examined with sensitivity and cannot be dismissed summarily merely due to delay.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FOR HEINOUS OFFENCES (Section 15)
A controversial aspect of the 2015 Act is the introduction of a preliminary assessment under Section 15, applicable when a child aged between 16 and 18 commits a heinous offence (punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or more).
The Board must assess:
– Mental and physical capacity to commit the offence;
– Ability to understand consequences;
– Circumstances in which the offence was committed.
If the Board is of the opinion that the child should be tried as an adult, it transfers the case to the Children’s Court under Section 18(3).
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY
In Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 787, the Supreme Court held that an offence which carries a minimum sentence of 7 years but no maximum (such as Section 304 IPC) cannot be treated as a heinous offence for the purposes of preliminary assessment.
Justice Deepak Gupta observed: “A child, even if 17 years and 364 days, should not be equated with an adult. The presumption must always favour reformative justice, not retribution.”
SAFEGUARDS FOR CHILDREN IN CONFLICT WITH LAW
- Confidentiality (Section 74)
No report of the child’s identity is to be published. Breach is punishable with imprisonment up to six months or fine or both. - Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration
Sections 39 and 40 emphasize the use of individual care plans, counseling, skill training, and foster care options. Detention is a last resort. - Prohibition of Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Without Remission
Section 21 categorically prohibits awarding death or life imprisonment without the possibility of release to any child. - This was reaffirmed in Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu2 where the Court emphasized that juveniles cannot be awarded non-remittable sentences, even if tried as adults.
APPEAL AND REVISION MECHANISM
- Appeal under Section 101
An appeal against any order of the JJB or Child Welfare Committee (CWC) lies to the Children’s Court (Sessions Judge). The appeal must be filed within 30 days.
Judgment: XYZ v. State of Gujarat3
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of a juvenile where procedural lapses in preliminary assessment led to wrongful transfer of case to the Children’s Court. - Revision under Section 102
The High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction against any order passed by the Board, CWC, or Children’s Court. This includes the power to correct errors in preliminary assessment, age determination, or trial procedures.
In Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan4, the Supreme Court held that the revisional powers of High Courts must be exercised liberally in favour of juveniles, especially when the claim is substantiated.
EVIDENTIARY CONCERNS AND MEDICAL AGE DETERMINATION
Ossification and Its Limits
Medical examination for age is only an estimate. Courts have repeatedly held it cannot override documentary evidence unless serious doubts exist.
In Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit5, the Court opined that school records are admissible and preferred over medical opinion if they bear consistency and authenticity.
In Anwar Ali v. State of West Bengal6 ,The Calcutta High Court quashed proceedings where the JJB accepted a dubious ossification report over a municipal birth certificate, terming it a miscarriage of justice.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
The Indian juvenile justice framework draws inspiration from Article 39(e) and (f) of the Constitution of India which mandates State protection for children against abuse and moral/physical harm.
Furthermore, Articles 14 and 21 have been judicially interpreted to include the right to a fair, reformative process for juveniles7.
India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989 which defines a child as a person below 18 years and emphasizes rehabilitation and best interest of the child as paramount.
CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS
- Ambiguity in Age Determination
Even with statutory guidelines, inconsistencies in school records, delayed birth registration, and subjective ossification reports have led to wrongful denial of juvenile status. - Adult Trial for Children Aged 16–18
Critics argue this violates the best interests of the child doctrine and the presumption of capacity. Child rights activists have challenged Section 15 and 18(3) before constitutional courts.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD
– Mandatory digital birth registration to reduce documentary inconsistencies.
– Uniform medical boards with forensic specialists for age determination.
– Psychological evaluation to be conducted by independent child psychologists, not police-hired experts.
– Better training for JJB members and sensitisation of trial judges.
– Expedited appellate procedures where juvenility is in doubt.
The determination of juvenility is not a mechanical exercise. It goes to the root of how justice is administered to minors who come into conflict with the law. As the Supreme Court aptly observed in Shilpa Mittal (supra), “The object is not to punish but to reform. It is the child who needs care, not condemnation.” The legal framework must constantly evolve, uphold constitutional morality, and preserve the dignity of every child, even one accused of crime.