BALANCING REHABILITATION AND RETRIBUTION: EXAMINING JUVENILE JUSTICE IN HEINOUS OFFENCES
By Pranathi S
B. A. LL. B (Hons.), National Law School of India University, India.
Email: pranathisrinivaas@gmail.com.
ABSTRACT
The question of whether juveniles should be tried as adults for heinous crimes is a complex and contentious issue that touches on legal, ethical, and societal concerns. Juvenile justice systems are rooted in the belief that young offenders have the potential for rehabilitation, but cases involving severe offenses like murder and rape challenge this principle. In India, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[1] allows juveniles aged 16-18 to be tried as adults for heinous crimes, reflecting the need for tougher measures in exceptional cases. This paper argues in favour of trying juveniles as adults, emphasizing that the demands of public safety, justice for victims, and accountability for severe offenses must take precedence over rehabilitation alone in such extreme circumstances. By examining the balance between deterrence, justice, and the reformative potential of juveniles, this paper advocates for a nuanced legal approach that recognizes the severity of certain crimes while acknowledging the potential for change in young offenders.
Keywords- Juveniles, Criminal Justice System, Rape, Punishment, etc.
I. INTRODUCTION
Juvenile delinquency is a serious offence, and it is detrimental for the social order in any country. The conviction of offenders is a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system, ensuring that every individual is held accountable for their actions. However, when it comes to young offenders – those below the age of majority – the law provides a distinct approach through the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[2].
Through this paper, I critically examine the interpretation and application of the term “heinous offences” under the Act, emphasizing how the provision[3] in cases such as Parag Bhati v State of Uttar Pradesh [4], may be misused as a loophole to evade appropriate conviction. It explores whether age alone is a sufficient determinant of culpability or whether factors such as cognitive maturity, intent, and the nature of the crime should take precedence. I also investigate the challenges of balancing public safety and justice for victims with the reformative potential of juvenile offenders. The research questions driving this inquiry are:
1. Does age sufficiently determine a juvenile’s culpability, or should cognitive maturity, intent, and nature of the crime take precedence?
2. How can the balance between public safety, justice for victims, and the reformative potential of juveniles be achieved in cases of heinous crimes?
3. How effective are existing provisions in deterring crime and achieving justice, and what lessons can be drawn from global practices?
This paper engages with the central debate of whether juveniles accused of heinous crimes should be tried as adults, advocating for a nuanced approach that balances justice, accountability, and the principles of rehabilitation and reform. I argue that age alone should not be the determining factor of punishment in cases involving heinous crimes, emphasizing the importance of cognitive maturity, intent, and crime severity. I also try to look at ways to fulfil both the principle of justice for victims along with society’s demand for accountability while offering insights into how legal frameworks can better align with societal expectations of justice, fairness, and rehabilitation.
II. Evolution of Juvenile Justice in India
Before 1960, India lacked a uniform legal definition for juvenile delinquents, with each state having its own Children’s Act and varying age limits for children. For instance, the Bombay Children Act of 19485 defined a child as a boy under 16 years old, while the Uttar Pradesh Children Act[6] defined a child as anyone under 16.
India became a signatory to the UN Declaration on Children’s Rights in 1959 and passed the Children Act 19607 in 1960. However, due to Standard Minimum Rules for Juvenile Justice adopted by the UN in 1985, India had to repeal the Children Act 19608 and introduce the Juvenile Justice Act 1986[9]. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989, further defined a child as any human being under the age of 18. This prompted additional reforms in India’s juvenile justice system. The Juvenile Justice Act 1986[10] was subsequently amended in 2000 and again in 2015. The current law in force in India is the amended Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The 2015 Amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act introduced landmark changes in response to public outrage over cases like the Nirbhaya case[11]. Section 15[12] of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 allowed juveniles aged 16-18 years to be tried as adults if they committed “heinous offenses” – crimes with a minimum punishment of seven years of imprisonment. “Heinous offenses” under the Act, include murder, rape, and other violent crimes that profoundly harm victims and society.
The amendment also streamlined adoption procedures and strengthened measures to protect children in need of care and protection. While praised for addressing societal concerns, it has also faced criticism for potentially compromising the core principle of juvenile justice: reform over punishment.
III. Role of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)
Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is the concerned authority to deal with Children in Conflict with Law (CCL)[13]. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) plays a pivotal role in handling cases involving juveniles in conflict with the law. It is responsible for conducting a preliminary assessment of the juvenile’s mental and physical capacity, the nature of the offense, and the circumstances under which it was committed. This assessment determines whether a juvenile aged 16-18 accused of a heinous offense should be tried as an adult. The JJB ensures the process respects the principles of child welfare, aiming to balance societal safety and the juvenile's right to reform. It functions as a specialized forum to provide justice through rehabilitation. The transfer of cases from the JJB to the Children’s Court occurs under specific conditions. If the JJB concludes, after preliminary assessment, that a juvenile aged 16-18 accused of a heinous offense has the capacity to commit the crime and requires a trial as an adult, the case is transferred. The Children’s Court then adjudicates the matter, with powers to award adult punishments while considering rehabilitation and reintegration options. This process ensures a balance between addressing public safety and respecting the juvenile’s developmental needs, adhering to strict guidelines to prevent undue harshness.
Statutory Provisions
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[14] lays down specific provisions for trying juveniles as adults. Section 15[15] outlines the preliminary assessment process by the JJB, while Section 1916 governs the transfer of cases to the Children’s Court. Safeguards include mandatory evaluation by experts to assess the juvenile’s capacity and the circumstances of the offense, ensuring decisions are fair and individualized. These provisions aim to address serious crimes effectively while maintaining the juvenile justice system’s rehabilitative framework. They also uphold procedural safeguards to protect juveniles from arbitrary or prejudiced decisions
The Ethical and Legal Debate Around Trying Juveniles as Adults: Does age sufficiently determine a juvenile’s culpability, or should cognitive maturity, intent, and nature of the crime take precedence?
Trying juveniles aged 16 – 18 as adults for heinous crimes serves as a deterrent, discouraging young offenders from severe offences such as murder and rape. The principle of justice for victims along with society’s demand for accountability, calls for stricter measures. In the landmark case of Mukesh Singh & Anr v State for NCT of Delhi, 2017[17], infamously known as the Nirbhaya case or the Delhi gang rape case, a juvenile’s involvement sparked widespread outrage and shook the society’s conscience. The juvenile, allegedly the most violent[18] of the six assailants, was declared a minor by the Juvenile Justice Board. In a controversial move, the board determined his age to be 17 years and six months, based on school records, which placed him just six months shy of adulthood. The board also rejected the Delhi Police's request for a bone ossification test to verify the accused's age, leaving society uncertain about the true age of the offender. Despite the brutality of the crime, the juvenile received a lenient sentence of three years. This raises the question: does a mere six-month difference truly impact an individual's cognitive and moral development?
Similarly, in Parag Bhati v State of U.P. [19], a juvenile manipulated his age to avoid harsh punishment for his crimes. Bhati’s defense relied on his high school certificate, which listed his date of birth as September 13, 1995, claiming that he was under 18 at the time of the crime. However, there were significant discrepancies in the documents presented. The JJB rejected the high school certificate and instead relied on a medical examination report that determined Bhati to be around 19 years old. The Board found that the transfer certificate from another school which also recorded a different date of birth was forged. Consequently, the Board concluded that Bhati was not a juvenile and he was transferred to the district jail instead of a juvenile home. In the present case, the Court held that any of the documents referred to in rule 12(3)(a)(i)-(iii) [20] of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 was in support of juvenile law.
Acknowledging that some juveniles possess the maturity to comprehend the consequences of their actions supports the rationale for adult trials in such cases. This ensures that those capable of understanding the severity of their crimes face appropriate consequences. The law also addresses concerns about offenders exploiting age to evade punishment. In the case of Sajal Barui v State of West Bengal [21], a juvenile’s premeditated actions revealed a clear capacity for criminal intent, undermining arguments that he should benefit from juvenile sentencing.
Age alone should not determine culpability, particularly in serious criminal cases. While age is an essential factor in distinguishing between juveniles and adults, it does not fully reflect an individual’s cognitive development, intent, or the nature of the crime. Cognitive maturity plays a significant role in determining whether a juvenile can understand the consequences of their actions. Research has shown that while adolescents’ brains are still developing, many possess the ability to comprehend the seriousness of their behaviour, especially in cases involving violent crimes like murder or rape [22]. Intent is also a key factor. A juvenile’s mental state – whether the crime was premeditated or impulsive – can significantly affect their level of culpability. Those who commit premeditated crimes may exhibit the same moral agency as adults, suggesting that they should face similar legal consequences [23]. Additionally, the nature of the crime must be considered. Heinous offenses, particularly those involving significant harm, often warrant a response that goes beyond age-based distinctions.
Offenders sometimes exploit the legal provisions surrounding age to escape punishment by manipulating or falsifying documents to portray themselves as juveniles, thereby benefiting from the leniency associated with juvenile justice systems. Under juvenile justice laws, minors are often granted reduced sentences or can be tried in juvenile courts, where the focus is on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. This leniency, while intended to protect genuinely young offenders, is at times used as a strategy by those who despite their youth, exhibit the maturity and intent of adult offenders.
How can the balance between public safety, justice for victims, and the reformative potential of juveniles be achieved in cases of heinous crimes?
Although it is arguable that trying juveniles as adults contravenes the principle of ‘best interest of the child,’ enshrined in international conventions and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in certain cases, it becomes necessary to try juveniles as adults to create deterrence and restore the victim’s faith in the justice system. Juveniles exposed to adult judicial processes and prison environments face severe psychological harm, as seen in Jitendra Singh v. State of U. P [24], where the juvenile’s rehabilitation needs were overshadowed by punitive measures.
Achieving a balance between public safety, justice for victims, and the reformative potential of juveniles in cases of heinous crimes is a complex challenge. The key principles here are deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of society.
Public Safety and Justice for Victims: Public safety is paramount, especially when the crime involves severe harm or violence. The justice system must ensure that juveniles who commit heinous acts are held accountable in a way that reflects the gravity of their offences. For particularly heinous crimes, age should not be a shield against appropriate sentencing.
The Reformative Potential of Juveniles: The juvenile justice system is grounded in the belief that young offenders have the potential for rehabilitation. Adolescents are still in the process of cognitive development, which means they can change and reintegrate into society, given the right support. Courts often emphasize reformative measures like counselling, education, and vocational training. Research has shown that these interventions can significantly reduce recidivism among juveniles [25]. Achieving a balance requires a more nuanced, case-by-case approach. Factors such as cognitive maturity, intent, and the nature of the crime should factor into sentencing. However, a juvenile who commits a premeditated crime may not have the same potential for rehabilitation as one who commits a crime impulsively. Mental health assessments and age verification are essential tools for determining whether a juvenile's maturity level aligns with their capacity for criminal intent. To strike the right balance, the legal system could introduce more flexible sentencing options for juveniles involved in serious crimes. This might include a mix of punitive measures alongside rehabilitation programs that focus on reintegration and behavioural correction. Judicial discretion allows to take into consideration the seriousness of the crime while also considering the offender's age and rehabilitative potential. This model ensures that justice is served while also acknowledging the capacity for change in young offenders [26].
How effective are existing provisions in deterring crime and achieving justice, and what lessons can be drawn from global practices?
In India, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and its predecessors have established frameworks focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration of juvenile offenders. However, the leniency in sentencing, especially for heinous crimes, has led to criticism. Juveniles who commit serious offenses, may receive lighter sentences due to their age, which undermines justice for victims and public trust in the system. The application of adult trials for juveniles, especially in cases of severe crimes, is a contentious issue. The Rishabh Atle27 case serves as a significant critique of leniency in juvenile sentencing. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the judgement of the trial court which found the juvenile (appellant) guilty under Section 376(2)(i)(k) [28] of the IPC and Sections 5(m)(i) [29] and 6 [30] of the POCSO Act, 2012.
A Single Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “This Court is once again at pains to observe that juveniles in this country are being treated rather too leniently, and that the Legislature, to the utter misfortune of the victims of such crimes, has still not learnt any lessons from the horrors of Nirbhaya. Looking to the overwhelming medical evidence available in the present case, it does not taken an expert to see as to how demonic the appellant’s conduct was while he was juvenile, and his mindset can also be gathered from the fact that he has also absconded from the observation home, and presently is at large, probably lurking in some dark corner of the street, for yet another prey, and there is nobody to stop him.”
Globally, restorative justice practices in juvenile systems have seen positive outcomes. For example, in countries like Norway and the Netherlands, where rehabilitation-focused approaches are implemented, juvenile recidivism rates are lower compared to more punitive systems. These practices aim to repair harm, foster accountability, and reintegrate offenders into society. Successful case studies from these countries suggest that a balanced approach – focusing on both rehabilitation and accountability is more effective than purely punitive or purely reformative measures.
IV. Conclusion
While punitive measures are necessary to ensure public safety and justice for victims, the focus should be on creating a system that not only punishes but also reforms. The integration of community-based rehabilitation, mentorship, and restorative justice can play a key role in fostering personal responsibility while addressing societal concerns about crime prevention. Balancing the objectives of public safety, justice for victims, and the reformative potential of juveniles remains one of the most intricate challenges within the justice system. While the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides a framework to address heinous offenses committed by juveniles, its implementation highlights critical gaps, particularly in achieving justice for victims and ensuring accountability. Cases such as Rishabh Atle and Parag Bhati underline the need for nuanced approaches that do not merely rely on age as a determinant of culpability but consider cognitive maturity, intent, and the nature of the offense.
The global perspective offers valuable lessons: restorative justice models in countries like Norway emphasize rehabilitation while maintaining accountability, resulting in lower recidivism rates. India’s juvenile justice system must evolve to incorporate flexible sentencing mechanisms that balance punitive measures with reformative programs. This approach ensures that juveniles capable of change are not denied rehabilitation, while those exhibiting adult-like culpability face appropriate consequences. By addressing systemic loopholes and adopting a case-specific methodology, the legal framework can better reflect the dual imperatives of justice and rehabilitation, fostering public trust and aligning with the evolving demands of a just society.
References -
1 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
2 ibid.
3 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 15.
4 Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Thr. Legal Guardian v State of Uttar Pradesh on 12 May, 2016.
5 Bombay Children Act, 1948.
6 U.P. Children Act, 1951.
7 The Children Act, 1960.
8 ibid.
9 The Juvenile Justice Act 1986.
10 The Juvenile Justice Act 1986.
11 Mukesh & Anr v State for NCT of Delhi & Ors on 5 May 2017.
12 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, s 15.
13 Juvenile Justice Board, Women and Child Development Department.
14 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
15 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, s 15.
16 ibid, s 19.
17 Mukesh Singh & Anr v State for NCT of Delhi & Ors on 5 May 2017.
18 “Most Violent of Nirbhaya’s Six Assailants Declared a Minor” Times of India, January 29, 2013. (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/most-violent-of-nirbhayas-six-assailants-declared-a- minor/articleshow/18231183.cms).
19 Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Thr. Legal Guardian v State of Uttar Pradesh on 12 May 2016.
20 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, S 12(3)(a)(i)-(iii).
21 Sajal Barui @ Papa v State of West Bengal on 30 August 2011.
22 T Murugesh, S Kaliraj. “Redefining Juvenile Justice: More Accountable and Reformative System Focused on Young Offenders.” Indian Journal of Legal Review 1432, Vol. 4, Issue 1 (2024).
23 T Murugesh, S Kaliraj. “Redefining Juvenile Justice: More Accountable and Reformative System Focused on Young Offenders.” Indian Journal of Legal Review 1432, Vol. 4, Issue 1 (2024).
24 Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh on 10 July 2013.
25 T Murugesh, S Kaliraj. “Redefining Juvenile Justice: More Accountable and Reformative System Focused on Young Offenders.” Indian Journal of Legal Review 1432, Vol. 4. Issue 1 [2024].
26 Abirami, Aneka R. “Juvenile Delinquency in India.” International Journal of Human Rights Law Review 228, Vol. 2. Issue 4 [2023].
27 Rishabh Atle (Minor) Thr. Next Friend (Father) Jaikishan Atle v State of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January 2019.
28 The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 376(2)(i)(k).
29 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, s 5(m)(i).
30 ibid, s 6.
Bibliography Cases
1. Mukesh Singh & Anr v State for NCT & Ors on 5 May 2017.
2. Parag Bhati Thr. Legal Guardian v State of Uttar Pradesh on 12 May 2016.
3. Sajal Barui @ Papa v State of West Bengal on 30 August 2011.
4. Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh on 10 July 2013.
5. Rishabh Atle (Minor) Thr. Next Friend (Father) Jaikishan Atle v State of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January 2019.
Statutes
1. Bombay Children Act, 1948.
2. U. P. Children Act, 1951.
3. The Children Act, 1960.
4. The Indian Penal Code, 1960.
5. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
6. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.
7. Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
8. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
News Articles and Journal Articles
1. “Most Violent of Nirbhaya’s Six Assailants Declared a Minor” Times of India, January 29, 2013.
(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/most-violent-of-nirbhayas-six-assailants-declared-a-minor/articleshow/18231183.cms).
2. T Murugesh, S Kaliraj. “Redefining Juvenile Justice: More Accountable and Reformative System Focused on Young Offenders.” Indian Journal of Legal Review 1432, Vol. 4, Issue 1 (2024).
3. Abirami, Aneka R. “Juvenile Delinquency in India.” International Journal of Human Rights Law Review 228, Vol. 2. Issue 4 [2023].
Miscellaneous
1. Juvenile Justice Board, Women and Child Development Department.
*******