Introduction
Under the Indian Juvenile Justice Act[1], a person under eighteen is considered a juvenile who is treated differently on the presumption of reduced mental maturity and more chances of reform. Juvenile justice law aims to rehabilitate, prioritising correction and social reintegration over punishment. This child-centric approach assumes that children in conflict with the law are largely shaped by their environment and are often victims of neglect, poverty, or adult exploitation.
Public and legal disclosure predominantly highlights the narrative where juveniles are portrayed as being lured into the crime by adult offenders or are compelled to do so because of the surroundings and conditions. This narrative is usually the reality in most cases, but they often ignore the other side, where the juveniles are fully aware of their actions and voluntarily take part in serious criminal conduct, but the crime is overlooked just on the basis of their age.
Heinous crimes such as rape or murder require a higher degree of intent, brutality, and awareness. The continued application of reduced punishment solely on the basis of age in such cases raises critical questions about proportionality, accountability, and justice.
The tension between protection and responsibility is a common debate in the juvenile justice system. The challenge is not to abandon the reformative approach taken towards minors, but rather to hold them accountable for their actions.
How can this be misused?
One of the most commonly observed avenues of misuse is the manipulation or falsification of age. Age is the only criterion for determining an individual as a juvenile. However, offenders slightly over eighteen may exploit documentation gaps, including school certificates, birth records, or even medical ossification tests, to claim juvenile status. In such borderline cases, the assumption that chronological age equates to mental or emotional immaturity becomes questionable. The Supreme Court, in Bhola Bhagat v State of Bihar[2] (1997), emphasised that whenever a plea of juvenility is raised, courts have a mandatory duty to conduct a thorough inquiry into the accused’s age and give the benefit of doubt in borderline cases. The birth certificate and the school leaving certificate are the documents used to determine age. A birth certificate alone cannot be the sole document to verify, as the national registration of births was only 55% in 1995. Many births are not even registered. The next best document is the school leaving certificate because school enrolment rates are higher.[3]
A second feature of the juvenile system that can be misused is the protection of identity and anonymity, guaranteed under Section 74 of the Act.[4] The anonymity provisions aim to prevent social stigma and allow genuine juveniles to reintegrate without prejudice. After serving their sentence, the offender’s identity remains unknown to those around them, including neighbours, coworkers, or community members. In cases of serious crimes such as rape or murder, this anonymity can pose a significant public safety risk. There is no way for people to know that the person serving them, working alongside them, or living in their neighbourhood may have previously committed a heinous offence, raising the possibility of repeated harm.
The issue of heinous crimes committed by minors raises particularly difficult ethical and legal questions. These crimes require deliberate intent and awareness, yet the law treats individuals slightly below eighteen as juveniles. The Nirbhaya case, also known as Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [5], showed that the offender received statutory juvenile protection, completing a three-year term and subsequently being reintegrated under a new identity. This judgment was given with the understanding that a minor should be provided with rehabilitative methods rather than punishment. This is important, but deterrence cannot be ignored. When a minor is fully aware of the nature and consequences of their actions, the system’s protective measures, such as an age threshold, may inadvertently shield deliberate, serious offenders from proportional punishment.
Balancing Protection and Accountability
While the solution is certainly not to treat children in the same manner as adult offenders, it is equally problematic to disregard the gravity of heinous crimes such as rape or murder. In such cases, where the offender demonstrates clear awareness and deliberate intent, punishment must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, balancing the need for reform with the demands of justice and public safety. A juvenile offender may develop a perception that escaping serious consequences enables repeated criminal behaviour. In a longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders, recidivism rates over a seven-year follow-up were estimated at 75 %–80 %, with extrapolated long-term rates nearing 79 %–89 %. These findings suggest that a significant majority of juveniles who enter the justice system for serious offences continue to engage in criminal behaviour. [6]
While age remains a crucial protective factor, it should not operate in isolation when the offender demonstrates deliberate planning and full awareness of the criminal act. Rehabilitation is the primary objective of juvenile justice, but deterrence cannot be overlooked. While identity protection is essential to safeguard juveniles from irreversible stigma, absolute anonymity in cases involving grave offences may compromise public safety. A system of controlled disclosure to relevant authorities could preserve privacy while ensuring oversight.
It must be acknowledged that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 does attempt to address this concern through Section 15[7], which allows for a preliminary assessment of juveniles aged between sixteen and eighteen accused of heinous offences. This assessment examines the child’s mental and physical capacity, ability to understand the consequences of the offence, and the circumstances in which it was committed. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism remains contested, as the assessment is discretionary, inconsistently applied, and limited in scope. Moreover, even where such assessments occur, key protections, such as identity anonymity and record erasure, continue to apply, raising concerns about the proportionality of accountability and public safety.
Conclusion
From this analysis, it is clear how the protection guaranteed by law regarding juveniles can sometimes be vulnerable or misused, potentially undermining the sense of accountability among guilty youngsters. Ultimately, it is essential to recognise that the youth justice system should not be solely focused on protection or punitive in nature. Instead, it is the intersection between protection and accountability, depending on the gravity of the crime perpetrated.
Author(s) Name: Ishita Sahay (Symbiosis Law School, Pune)
References:
[1] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (Act No 2 of 2016) s 2(35).
[2] Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, (1997) 8 SCC 720
[3] CHILDLINE India Foundation, Child Protection and Juvenile Justice System for Juveniles in Conflict with Law (Childline India Foundation, December 2006) 29 https://www.childlineindia.org/pdf/CP-JJ-JCL.pdf accessed 3 January 2026.
[4] Juvenile Justice Act 2015 (n 1) s 72.
[5] Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1
[6] R Brame, E P Mulvey, C A Schubert and A R Piquero, Recidivism in a Sample of Serious Adolescent Offenders (Pathways to Desistance Study, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2016) 75–80 % https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29755185/ accessed January 4, 2026
[7] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 s 15.
