Juveniles Tried as Adults: A Comparative Study of India and Foreign Jurisdictions

 

Abstract

The number of crimes committed by young people is increasing, and this has become a major discussion worldwide. People are debating how to strike a balance between helping young offenders change and holding them accountable for their actions. For a long time, it was believed that children could change and become better, and that they should therefore be treated differently from adults who commit crimes. However, when young people commit very serious offences, it forces countries like India to reconsider how they treat young offenders.

This article examines the laws in India that allow young people to be tried as adults in court, and compares these laws to those of other countries. It discusses the court decisions that have changed the way India treats young people who break the law, and asks whether the current laws are fair to everyone involved — society, the victims of crimes, and the offenders themselves.

Introduction

When we discuss the term “juvenile,” the first thing that comes to mind is children or young people. The term juvenile is generally used to refer to people below the age of 18, while people above 18 are considered adults. It is commonly believed that children are entirely dependent on their parents, guardians, or elders for decision-making, since they are not considered capable of making decisions about their personal lives or other matters at that age. This is because they are not thought to be aware of what is right or wrong until they reach the age of 18, after which they are considered mature enough to make decisions for themselves.

To understand this debate further, it helps to distinguish between “juvenile crime” and “juvenile justice.” Juvenile crime refers to offences committed by a juvenile, while juvenile justice refers to the delivery of justice that accounts for the ways children differ from adults — in mental maturity, decision-making capacity, and exposure to external influences such as family or social environment. Juvenile offences can be classified into three types: Petty Offences, for which the maximum punishment is up to three years of imprisonment (examples include theft, minor injury, property damage, and nuisance); Serious Offences, for which the punishment ranges from more than three years to seven years (examples include fraud or cheating, grievous hurt, and trespass with intent to commit an offence); and Heinous Offences, for which the minimum punishment is seven years or more (examples include murder, rape, kidnapping, and acid attacks). Historically, rehabilitation was preferred over punishment worldwide when dealing with juvenile offences.

This rehabilitation-first approach is increasingly being challenged, as juvenile crime in India rose by 11.2% in 2024 compared to previous years, according to the latest report from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).[1] In India, this debate intensified after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, in which one of the offenders was a juvenile. The case led to serious questions about existing laws and prompted legal reforms such as the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Many argued that rehabilitation was not an adequate response to such offences, and that juveniles who commit them should be treated the same as adults — an argument that eventually led to new reforms.

The sections that follow examine the evolution of juvenile justice in India, the circumstances under which a juvenile can be tried as an adult, and a comparison of India’s juvenile justice framework with that of other countries.

Evolution of Juvenile Justice in India

One of the cornerstones of juvenile justice is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),[2] an agreement signed by 196 countries that sets out the rights of the child regardless of race, gender, religion, or ability. India is among the 196 signatories to the UNCRC, under which any person below the age of 18 is considered a child.

Before 2015, anyone below the age of 18 was treated as a child regardless of whether the offence was petty, serious, or heinous; the nature of the offence was not a relevant factor for individuals below that age. The primary objective of the system was the rehabilitation and protection of children’s rights.

The 2012 Delhi gang rape case fundamentally changed public perception of this approach. Because one of the offenders was a juvenile, the case triggered intense scrutiny of the existing law and calls for reform, with many arguing that rehabilitation was not an adequate response and that such offenders should be tried as adults. In response to public demand, Parliament enacted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 15[3] of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[4] provides that an individual between the ages of sixteen and eighteen who is accused of a heinous offence must first undergo a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Board examines whether the child is able to understand the consequences of the offence and whether the child is mentally and physically capable of standing trial. If the JJB is satisfied on these points, the matter is transferred to a regular court for trial as an adult.

Landmark Judgments

Salil Bali v. Union of India[5]
Following the 2012 Delhi rape case, several petitioners challenged the existing Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, arguing that individuals between sixteen and eighteen years of age should be tried as adults for heinous offences. The Supreme Court retained 18 as the age of juvenility, but the resulting public dissatisfaction contributed to the subsequent reduction — under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 — of the age threshold for heinous crimes to sixteen.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju[6]
This case arose out of the Nirbhaya case (the 2012 Delhi rape case), in which one of the offenders was a juvenile. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and others challenged the existing law, arguing that offenders under the age of 18 should be treated as adults. The Supreme Court upheld the existing law, ruling that the judiciary could not alter the statutory age of juvenility set by Parliament — but the debate this case generated contributed to the reform that produced the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Sheela Barse v. Union of India[7]
In this case, journalist and activist Sheela Barse drew attention to the practice of detaining children in jail alongside adults. The central issue was whether children could lawfully be held in ordinary prisons, and whether doing so violated their rights. The Supreme Court held that children and adult prisoners must be held separately, and the judgment emphasised broader concerns of child welfare.

These three cases remain among the most significant judicial decisions shaping juvenile justice in India.

Comparative Analysis

India
India initially relied on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000[8] to address juvenile offences; it was later replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Under the 2000 Act, anyone below 18 was considered a child regardless of the offence. Under the 2015 Act, individuals between sixteen and eighteen can be tried as adults for heinous crimes following a preliminary investigation by the JJB. India has established separate courts for juvenile trials, composed of a Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate and two social workers, at least one of whom must be a woman. These courts are required to resolve matters within four months, and the child must receive appropriate counselling during this period regarding the offence committed and how to avoid similar conduct in the future.

USA
The American juvenile justice system is governed by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), 1974, reauthorised in 2002. It seeks to provide swift redress to juveniles and their families and generally applies to minors under the age of 18, though in some states children as young as seven can be held responsible for violating the law. Youth Courts handle proceedings related to juvenile offences.

United Kingdom
The youth justice system in England and Wales governs individuals below the age of 18 and, depending on the offence, they may be prosecuted or sentenced as adults. This framework is designed to prevent juveniles from committing further criminal offences. Youth Courts handle most offences committed by young people, except murder and manslaughter. Most defendants in Youth Court are between twelve and seventeen years old; if the offence is serious, the case is transferred to a higher court.

Canada
The Canadian juvenile justice system is governed by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), under which a person between the ages of twelve and seventeen can be charged. Anyone aged eighteen or older is treated as an adult and falls outside the Act, while children under twelve cannot be charged with a crime under it. Rehabilitation is generally preferred, but in serious cases a juvenile can be sentenced as an adult, including receiving a minimum penalty or life imprisonment.

Australia
Juvenile justice in Australia is governed by state and territory legislation, as there is no single nationwide juvenile justice law.[9] Australian juvenile justice does not treat juveniles as adults; rehabilitation is preferred over punishment to prevent reoffending. Ten years is the minimum age of criminal responsibility in most Australian jurisdictions. Juvenile offenders are tried in children’s courts, separate from adult courts, and offenders between ten and thirteen are presumed incapable of criminal intent unless it is proven that they understood their conduct. Australian law generally treats detention as a measure of last resort, with courts favouring supervision orders, community service, or counselling.

Germany
The German juvenile justice system is governed by the Jugendgerichtsgesetz (JGG — Juvenile Court Act), which emphasises education over punishment. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is fourteen; individuals aged fourteen to seventeen are treated as minors, and those aged eighteen to twenty as young adults. Young adults can still be treated as juveniles if their level of maturity is judged to be comparable.

Juveniles are treated differently across countries, but the underlying goal is largely the same: preventing juveniles from reoffending and securing a better future for them. India, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany are all parties to the UNCRC, which embeds principles of child welfare, children’s rights, and rehabilitation into their juvenile justice systems. The United States has signed but not ratified the Convention.

Why Should — or Shouldn’t — Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?

Proponents argue that juveniles should be tried as adults for heinous crimes, regardless of age, in order to uphold public security and public confidence in the justice system. Doing so, they argue, would reduce similar offences in the future and serve both justice and the long-term interests of juveniles themselves.

Opponents argue that juveniles often lack a full understanding of the consequences of their actions, and that placing them in adult prisons can expose them to negative influences that increase the likelihood of further offending. In their view, rehabilitation better serves a juvenile’s long-term future than punishment, and harsh punishment risks violating children’s rights. On this view, rehabilitation should generally be preferred over punishment for juvenile offenders.

Critical Analysis

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, represents a compromise between rehabilitation and accountability.[10] Accountability, in this context, means holding juveniles responsible for the offences they have committed. A juvenile between sixteen and eighteen must undergo a preliminary assessment by the JJB before a case can be transferred to an adult court.

The JJB assesses whether the child understands the consequences of the offence and whether the child is mentally and physically capable of standing trial, since children of this age are not presumed to be mature enough to fully grasp questions of right and wrong. If the Board is satisfied on these points, the case is transferred for trial as an adult. Each case is different, and if the system focuses solely on punishment, it risks losing sight of the underlying responsibility to care for children who get into trouble.

Comparing the juvenile justice principles of different countries shows that rehabilitation is generally favoured over punishment, on the theory that it improves outcomes for children and reduces the likelihood of reoffending. While it remains important to hold children accountable for their conduct, the broader goal should always be to help them improve.

Conclusion

Juvenile justice has become a widely debated topic. Some argue that juveniles should be punished regardless of age, on the basis that failing to do so will lead to repeat offending and undermine public safety. This view often overlooks the circumstances of the juvenile — that they may not be fully aware of the consequences of their actions or of what is right or wrong, and that at this age they are still substantially dependent on their parents for decision-making.

The main socio-economic causes of juvenile crime include poverty, family breakdown, substance abuse, lack of access to education, and the influence of social media. Children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to become involved in theft, drug trafficking, or similar offences due to financial pressure. A child’s social environment — including domestic violence, parental substance abuse, family breakdown, or lack of supervision — can also significantly affect their behaviour. Lack of education is a further contributing factor, since education helps develop discipline and social skills. During adolescence, children are strongly influenced by their peers, and falling in with the wrong company can alter the course of a young person’s life; many children become involved in crime during this stage in pursuit of status or peer approval, leading them into illegal activity and, in some cases, drug use.

These are among the principal causes of juvenile crime, and addressing them requires improving educational opportunities — including special educational programmes for children in conflict with the law — alongside family and community counselling to prevent delinquency, and continued investment in rehabilitation programmes. Measures of this kind can help reduce juvenile crime and improve outcomes for children.

Cybercrime is also an increasingly significant part of juvenile offending. As more young people go online and develop technical skills, more of them are becoming involved in offences such as hacking, cyberbullying, identity theft, and online scams. Many of these offences arise from curiosity, peer influence, or a lack of awareness of the legal consequences involved. This rise in juvenile cybercrime suggests a need for better education on cyber law, closer parental oversight, and stronger digital ethics education. As with other forms of juvenile offending, the goal should be to strike a balance between helping young people who commit technology-related offences to change their behaviour and ensuring they remain accountable for their actions.

At its core, juvenile justice reflects a broader tension between rehabilitation and punishment. India’s Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, permits juveniles to be tried as adults for heinous crimes only in exceptional cases. Public concern continues to drive legal reform, but the best interests of the child remain the guiding principle. A fair juvenile justice system should not simply punish offenders — it should also work toward child welfare and the protection of children’s rights.

References

[1] National Crime Records Bureau, cited in “Juvenile Justice in India: Trends, Challenges and the Way Forward,” available at https://www.cdpp.co.in/articles/juvenile-justice-in-india-trends-challenges-and-the-way-forward.
[2] UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF UK, available at https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/.
[3] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 15.
[4] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, India Code, available at https://www.indiacode.nic.in.
[5] Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705.
[6] Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2014) 8 SCC 390.
[7] Sheela Barse v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 1773.
[8] “Juvenile Justice: Comparative Analysis with the Laws of USA, UK and Canada,” available at https://lexpeeps.in/juvenile-justice-comparative-analysis-with-the-laws-of-usa-uk-and-canada/.
[9] “Global Perspectives on Juvenile Delinquency,” available at https://ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Global-Perspectives-on-Juvenile-Delinquency.pdf.
[10] Manupatra, available at http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/85D28740-6B71-4969-970D-18EDDC7E245B.pdf.