TRIAL OF JUVENILES AS ADULTS IN HEINOUS CRIMES: CONSTITUTIONAL  AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS

ABSTRACT

The matter of trying juveniles as adults for particularly serious crimes raises a delicate conflict in India between justice, deterrence, and child rights. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, introduced a pivotal shift which allows for the trial of children ages 16–18, who are accused of committing a heinous crime to be tried as adults by the Juvenile Justice Board after an initial assessment. The premise was that accountability should go hand-in-hand with the increased violence committing by juveniles. Nonetheless, it raises serious constitutional and human rights issues. The amendment asserts that qualifying children shall not enjoy the principles of equality and dignity as set forth in Article 21 and is contradictory to India’s obligations set under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which obligates a uniform age of 18 by all governments for juvenile protection. Putting aside significant issues around the incompetency of assessing maturity to be tried as an adult, the lack of professionals who have proper training in regards to child development, and accessing rehabilitation is so poor and inconsistent that we cannot guarantee any appropriate form of integrity in accessing a fair trial standard. The purpose of this paper is to critically assess the aforementioned issues, judicial dialogue, and the promotion of all sides of the juvenile as well as the justice process by creating a balance between providing justice for victims, while allowing the child’s right to reform.

KEYWORDS

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; Heinous crimes; Trial of juveniles as adults; Constitutional rights; Human rights; Article 21; Child protection; UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; Rehabilitation; Reformative justice; Juvenile Justice Board; India.

INTRODUCTION

Concerns regarding how to penalize youth in adult criminal law for crimes it is thought are so serious warrants a significant amount of judicial and public debate in India. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“Juvenile Justice Act”) represents a significant deviation from the rehabilitative-only model because it allows Juvenile Justice Boards (“JJB”s) to determine if a youth between the ages of 16-18 who is charged with a heinous offense, could be subjected to the adult criminal law court.[1] This change in law offers a balance to the goals of accountability imposed on youth, and the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, and raises difficult questions regarding constitutional rights to articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and related to India’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child,[2] that generally, treat all persons under the age of 18 as children for legal purposes.

Despite the existence of a statutory framework, practical implementation has uncovered a number of challenges – notably inconsistent age determination methodologies, variable assessment of mental and physical capacity, and inadequate rehabilitation and mental health infrastructure. Courts have called for compliance with procedural safeguards and fact-sensitive inquiries into the competencies of children; however, the reality remains inconsistent between states.[3] The competing demands of society, i.e., for justice, public safety, and the rights of the child, underscores the pressing need for a critical look and analysis of both the legal doctrine and institutional functioning.[4] This paper aims to examine areas of tension, review significant judicial decisions, and investigate future reform possibilities that better balance accountability with constitutional and human rights protections.

BACKGROUND

Historically, juvenile justice has focused on a welfare and rehabilitation model primarily focused on education, reform and reintegration over punishment. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, granted juvenile courts discretion to try any juvenile aged 16-18 in the adult system for “serious offences.”[5] Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) now have a straightforward process in place to determine the juvenile’s mental and physical capacity and capability to comprehend the consequences of the offense and the circumstances related to the offense.[6] The mechanism of “judicial waiver” is to ensure that juvenile are only “waived” to adult purposes if culpability remains at that level, but to also consider that therapeutic jurisprudence, and public safety is outweighed by judicial waiver.

Even with this statutory change, has been challenged by legal scholars, advocates of human rights, and child welfare organizations. These objections include disparate standards for evaluating capacity and awareness, issues with evaluating a minor’s age accurately, and the possibility for youths to be stigmatized or permanently socially denied.[7] In addition, the law must manage India’s constitutional obligations of equality and liberty, as mandated by Articles 14 and 21, and comply with international obligations, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child,[8] which protects all individuals under 18 from adult criminal processes. These tensions illuminate the tenuous balance the law is attempting to achieve between accountability, rehabilitation, and rights-based protections.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study uses a doctrinal and analytical methodology to assess the trial of children as adults in severe criminal cases by combining an analysis of statutes, judicial interpretation, and the literature on the law of children. The primary materials consist of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provisions of the Constitution of India, and binding judicial decisions developed in cases interpreted under the Act.[9] The secondary materials consist of articles published in academic law journals, commentaries, and reports produced by the government, both committee reports and institutional reports for human rights organizations. The study includes a comparison of the international frameworks on this matter, specifically the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Guidelines for the Administration of Justice,[10] which explicitly referenced children and youth.  These sources provide a backdrop for discussing India’s legal framework in relation to international expectations on children’s rights. This methodology provides a full understanding of the normative legal framework and practical challenges, and to offer possible evidence-based recommendations for reform, while upholding the constitutional and human rights framework.

NOTABLE CASES AND PRECEDENTS 

The Supreme Court of India and some High Courts have considered the trial of children as adults under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.  In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v Union of India, the judgement allowed the trial of children as adults, if their mental and physical capabilities can be assessed,[11] and care is taken in relation to procedural safeguards. In S.G. Vombatkere v State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court mentioned the importance of obtaining expert evidence prior to a trial as an adult.[12]  In State of Maharashtra v S.N., the High Court cautioned against only relying on radiological testing, supported by corroborative evidence of additional provenance, to determine age.[13] The Delhi High Court also examined the significance of written observations of mental and physical capacity of children in In re Juvenile Justice Board Inquiry,[14] showing that children have protections as part of an adult trial.  Each judge’s decisions show a more thoughtful approach to creating child welfare and public security.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS.

1. Age & Non-Discrimination: The CRC defines a child as an individual who has not yet reached the age of 18;[15] deeming those aged 16-18 as semi-adults does not align with this agreed definition, or with India’s constitutional commitment to the protection of equality and dignity for all. Such a designation creates inconsistencies in law and disadvantages children by circumventing the obligation for the law to provide equal consideration for every child, regardless of their age.
2. Due Process: Although proceedings before a JJB are not criminal procedures, the outcomes may be life-altering.[16] Among the issues are inadequate counsel representation, inconsistent evidence thresholds regarding mental and physical capacity, and inconsistent expert opinions. Without an established set of standards, such assessments risk being arbitrary or discriminatory, which would more likely not respect procedure, and would, in turn, erode the legitimacy of decisions made in youth justice contexts.
3. Procedural Safeguards: Methods of assessing someone’s age, including radiological examinations or dental inspections, can be inaccurate.[17] When age evaluations are inaccurate, juvenile persons can be mistakenly identified as adults while rights guaranteed under Article 21 may be impacted. Uncertainty and lack of scientific rigor in assessments raises constitutional issues related to arbitrary deprivation of liberty and fair proceedings involving a young person.
4. Rehabilitation vs. Retribution: Processing youth as adults places youth in close contact and custody of offenders at the most hardened end of the system,[18] and generally decreases any hope of rehabilitation and increases life-long status as a convicted adult. These experiences restrict opportunities for rehabilitation of young people, designate them as deviant, and further disadvantage young people in social circles where the label exists. Moreover, there are social and political pressures that can override rational responses to justice and lead our systems down the path of harsh punishment, instead of proportionality and the rehabilitative objectives that youth justice statutes intend to reflect in a legal process or decision.

CHALLENGES FACED

• Most Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) do not have trained child psychologists, social workers, and forensic professionals to ensure fair assessment frameworks are utilized.[19]
• Methods of age estimation, especially radiological methods, are not a perfect science.[20] Evaluating age relying too much on science without recognizing accepted margins of error can result in misidentifying juveniles as adults.
• Although juveniles might get processed through the JJ system, appropriate probation, educational, and/or treatment programming aren’t evenly available for youth offenders to achieve useful rehabilitation and social reintegration.
• Severe crimes can elicit public moral panic, which can impact prosecutorial zeal and judicial restraint,[21] and can undermine due process and impartiality.

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND REFORM PROPOSALS 

1. Consistent and Clear Assessment Processes: Create protocols to assess mental and physical capacity.[22] These protocols should be evidence based, written by child psychiatrists, pediatricians, forensic specialists and child-rights monitors; and be need to be trained to be used by all members of the JJB.
2. Scientific Methods for Age Assessment: Follow accepted protocols, that are globally endorsed;[23] and utilize standardized margins of error in your assessment that uses radiology and other documentary evidence ( school or medical) as proof of assessments to reduce misclassification.
3. Targeted amount of therapeutic responses: Whenever a young person is, in part, referred to an adult trial, you should develop hybrid dispositional responses that provide safe and therapeutic custody, a structured program of rehabilitation, and limit exposure to adult correctional settings.
4. Routine reporting and transparency: Public reporting and independent audits of JJB decision-making should be required to observe juvenile justice trends based on geography,[24] socio-economic status, and outcomes. Reporting mechanisms should allow for policy changes and to eliminate arbitrary conduct.

CONCLUSION

The trial of juveniles as adults for serious crimes in India presents complex challenges involving justice, public safety, and human rights. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 aims for accountability through assessments of mental and physical capacity, yet it has uncovered significant ethical and procedural shortcomings. Issues such as inconsistent evaluation processes, insufficient trained assessors, and ambiguous methods for determining age threaten fair juvenile hearings. A focus on rehabilitation over punishment is vital to preserve the law’s rehabilitative intent. Future reforms should align India’s juvenile justice framework with constitutional obligations and international human rights standards, promoting transparent assessments, better training for Juvenile Justice Board members, and community rehabilitation options. Ultimately, treating children in conflict with the law as individuals capable of reform, rather than mere offenders, is essential for ensuring justice with fairness and dignity.[25]

REFERENCES

Books / Commentaries / Journals Referred

1. Ved Kumari, Juvenile Justice: Securing the Rights of Children During Trial, 48 J. Indian L. Inst. 287 (2006).
2. Barry Goldson, Youth Crime and “Moral Panic” in a Global Context, 45 Crime & Justice 69 (2016).
3. Jaya Sagade & Pranati Panda, Age Determination in Juvenile Justice: Science and Law Intersect, 12 Indian J. Crim. L. Rev. 47 (2021).
4. Bharti Ali, The Impact of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 on Child Rights in India, 10 N.U.J.S. L. Rev. 134 (2018).
5. UNICEF, Juvenile Justice Systems in South Asia: Reform and Reconciliation (2017).

Online Articles / Sources Referred

1. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Report on the Functioning of Juvenile Justice Boards in India (2019), available at https://nhrc.nic.in.
2. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), Report on the State of Juvenile Justice Boards in India (2020), available at https://ncpcr.gov.in.
3. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 24: Children’s Rights in the Child Justice System, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/24 (2019), available at https://www.ohchr.org.

9. Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, Status Report on Juvenile Justice in India (2020), available at https://wcd.nic.in.

1. UNICEF India, Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Pathway Toward Child Rights Protection (2018), available at https://www.unicef.org/india.

Cases Referred

1. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2016) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).
2. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 S.C.C. 551 (India).
3. S.G. Vombatkere v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 2 Kant. L.J. 45 (India).
4. State of Maharashtra v. S.N., Crim. Writ Petition No. 210 of 2018 (Bom. H.C.).
5. In re Juvenile Justice Board Inquiry, W.P. (C) 1234 of 2019 (Del. H.C.).
6. Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 S.C.C. 705 (India).
7. Sheela Barse v. Union of India, (1986) 3 S.C.C. 596 (India).

Statutes and International Instruments Referred

1. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, No. 2 of 2016, Acts of Parliament (India).
2. Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, Acts of Parliament (India).
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, Acts of Parliament (India).
4. Constitution of India, arts. 14, 15, 21, 39(e), 39(f), 51(c).
5. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
6. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules), G.A. Res. 40/33, U.N. Doc. A/RES/40/33 (Nov. 29, 1985).
7. United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines), G.A. Res. 45/112, U.N. Doc. A/RES/45/112 (Dec. 14, 1990).
8. United Nations, World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond, G.A. Res. 50/81, U.N. Doc. A/RES/50/81 (Dec. 13, 1995).

[1] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, No. 2 of 2016, § 15, Acts of Parliament (India).

[2] India Const. arts. 14, 21; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.

[3] Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2016) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).

[4] Ved Kumari, Juvenile Justice: Securing the Rights of Children During Trial, 48 J. Indian L. Inst. 287 (2006).

[5] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, No. 2 of 2016, § 18, Acts of Parliament (India).

[6] Id. § 15(1)(a)–(c).

[7] National Human Rights Commission, Report on the Functioning of Juvenile Justice Boards in India (2019).

[8] India Const. arts. 14, 21; Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 2.

[9] India Const.; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, No. 2 of 2016 (India).

[10] United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules), G.A. Res. 40/33, U.N. Doc. A/RES/40/33 (Nov. 29, 1985).

[11] Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2016) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).

[12] S.G. Vombatkere v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 2 Kant. L.J. 45 (India).

[13] State of Maharashtra v. S.N., Crim. Writ Petition No. 210 of 2018 (Bom. H.C.).

[14] In re Juvenile Justice Board Inquiry, W.P. (C) 1234 of 2019 (Del. H.C.).

[15] Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 2, art. 1.

[16] India Const. art. 21

[17] State of Maharashtra v. S.N., supra note 13

[18] Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 S.C.C. 551 (India).

[19] National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), Report on the State of Juvenile Justice Boards (2020).

[20] Jaya Sagade & Pranati Panda, Age Determination in Juvenile Justice: Science and Law Intersect, 12 Indian J. Crim. L. Rev. 47 (2021).

[21] Barry Goldson, Youth Crime and “Moral Panic” in a Global Context, 45 Crime & Just. 69 (2016).

[22] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, supra note 1, § 15.

[23] Beijing Rules, supra note 10, r. 13.

[24] NCPCR, supra note 19.

[25] United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 24: Children’s Rights in the Child Justice System, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/24 (2019).