Lowering the age of juvenility for crimes is a step back

It has been a decade since the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, or the JJ Act, came into force, altering the juvenile justice landscape by introducing the “transfer system.” A Private Member’s Bill introduced in Parliament in December 2025 has sought to amend the JJ Act by lowering the age threshold from 16 to 14 years for children accused of “heinous” offences. These are offences with a minimum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment or more. If enacted, this will permit 14 to 15 year olds to potentially be exposed to adult criminal trial processes and prison, further eroding principles of care, rehabilitation and reintegration and prioritising retribution. #### The problem with the ‘transfer system’ The Indian juvenile justice is premised on the philosophy that children are developmentally different from adults, and are amenable to reform. In response to the Delhi gang rape case (2012), the JJ Act took a punitive turn, introducing the “transfer system,” under which 16 to 18 year olds accused of heinous offences are subjected to a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to determine whether they should be tried as adults. Their mental capacity and ability to understand consequences of the offence are assessed among other things. If transferred, the children’s courts can try them as an adult or deal with them as a child. This change was not supported either by empirical evidence or by the Parliamentary Standing Committee that had examined the Bill and found it to be contrary to domestic and international standards on juvenile justice. ## Related Stories • Explained | How can a juvenile be tried as an adult in Court? Explained | How can a juvenile be tried as an adult in Court? • Providing justice for juveniles Providing justice for juveniles • Trying juveniles as adults is not the answer Trying juveniles as adults is not the answer • More than 50% pending cases before Justice Juvenile Board; JJBs not fully staffed More than 50% pending cases before Justice Juvenile Board; JJBs not fully staffed Evidence is now emerging that the transfer system is fraught with arbitrariness, procedural complexity and confusion. By requiring assessment of whether a child “knew the consequences” of an act or possessed the “mental capacity” to commit it, the framework shifts attention away from developmental stages and lived circumstances towards an abstract notion of blame. Besides, no tools exist that can determine if a child has adult-level capacities to commit a crime, or retrospectively assess their mental capacity at the time of the alleged offence. Assessments have turned on considerations bearing little relationship to developmental capacity such as whether the child knew that the act was “wrong”, whether they appeared fearful and repentant during arrest, or whether they could describe the possible consequences of their actions. Similarly placed children are exposed to starkly different outcomes, resulting from personal circumstances, assessment processes, and subjective decisions of JJBs, rather than their actual conduct. No framework, however carefully devised, can resolve the inherent inequality embedded in a process that undermines the rehabilitation objective, creates an artificial classification of children, and results in discriminatory outcomes. Expanding this mechanism to children as young as 14 risks institutionalising arbitrariness at an earlier and more vulnerable stage of childhood. #### The reality of adolescent offending The present Bill also asserts that there has been a noticeable increase in serious crimes committed by 14 to 16 year olds, and reducing the age threshold is necessary to ensure accountability and deterrence. However, according to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics, in 2023, 31,365 cases were registered against Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL), which constituted 0.5% of all crimes registered that year. Further, of the 40,036 CICLs apprehended in 2023, 79% (31,610) were between ages 16 to 18 years, with those aged between 12 and 16 constituting the remaining 21% (8,426). The NCRB data thus directly contradicts any claim that younger adolescents, specifically those between 14 to 16 years, are the driving force behind an increase in serious crime. The proposal also reflects a flawed understanding about how children enter the criminal justice system. Many cases involving adolescents arise from structural vulnerability and inequalities. It bears recalling that many children in conflict with the law are simultaneously children in need of care and protection, whose contact with the justice system reflects unmet welfare obligations rather than inherent criminality. Lowering the age threshold risks drawing these children deeper into punitive processes, without improving the system’s ability to distinguish between culpability and vulnerability. Exposure to adult criminal processes carries serious consequences for children. Detention interrupts schooling and stunts cognitive development, criminal proceedings generate stigma, and prolonged engagement with the justice system creates lasting psychological strain. The process itself is punitive and traumatising, regardless of the outcome. With evidence that children are still illegally detained in police stations and placed in adult prisons, contrary to statutory safeguards, the problem that needs fixing is the systemic failure and lack of accountability to protect children in conflict with the law. #### Fix the system, not the child The Bill shifts the system decisively toward punishment at an earlier age, and diverts attention from the need for early intervention, strengthening of family, education, mental health support and systemic changes. Legislative attempts at blurring the distinction between adolescence and adulthood undermine foundational child rights principles, including best interests and equality before the law. If the goal is to respond meaningfully to serious harm, the answer lies not in withdrawing protection, but in investing in the strengthening of institutions and communities meant to support children before harm occurs. Recasting such systemic failures as justification for the harsher treatment of CICLs does not solve the problem. It merely transfers its consequences onto those who are least equipped to bear them. Vandana Venkatesh is a Legal Researcher at Enfold Proactive Health Trust, where she works on issues related to child rights and juvenile justice in India Published - January 22, 2026 12:08 am IST ### Related Topics crime, law and justice / crime / children / juvenile delinquency / laws / parliament / adults / sexual assault / school / education / police / family / health / human rights