Introduction

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was passed by the
Parliament after the brutal rape of ‘Nirbhaya’ shook the conscience of the Nation. The
juvenile involved in the case was painted by the media as the most brutal and that led to
protests regarding the provisions in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. However, the lawmakers
failed to take into consideration the objections raised by the child rights organisations, the
264th Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resource Development and the rationale
laid in judgements such as Salil Balil v. Union of India and Subramanian Swami v. Union
of India. The Act fails to pass the test of Articles 14, 15(3) and 21 of the Constitution.

It is a well-established provision that Article 14 permits reasonable classification if the

classification has a nexus with the object of the Act. While upholding the age of juvenility at
18 years in Salil Bali, the Court observed that the age of eighteen has been fixed on account
of the understanding of experts in child psychology and behavioural pattern and that till such
an age the children in conflict with law could still be redeemed and restored to mainstream
society, instead of becoming hardened criminals in future.

Section 15 intends to create a further classification with reference to the age and the nature of
the crime. In order for this differential treatment to pass the test of Article 14, it has to have a
nexus with the object of the Act. According to the Preamble of the Act, the objective of the
Act is to provide care, protection, development, treatment and reintegration to children and
disposal of matters in the best interest of children and not to subject children to any
punishment.

The provision of subjecting children to the adult criminal system based on their age, nature of
crime and circumstances does not meet these objectives. It defeats the rehabilitative
foundation by adopting a retributive approach. This sub classification does have a nexus with
the object of the Act and hence is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Further, the Constitution has recognised that children being a vulnerable section of the
society require special protection and has permitted the State to enact laws in favour of
children under Article 15(3). According to Article 21 of the Constitution of India the
procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable. The transfer of children who
have committed heinous offences to the adult judicial system is based on the flawed
assumption that children who commit heinous crimes are as culpable or blameworthy as their
adult counterparts.

A case by case determination of maturity to determine culpability of a child is scientifically

impossible. As a result of this, a presumption of maturity existed beyond the age of eighteen.
Since an accurate determination of maturity of a child is not possible, the Act makes an
erroneous assumption that the gravity of the offence is an indicator of the maturity of the
child. Further, the procedures contained in the adult judicial system do not meet the
requirements of children.
The juvenile justice system has child appropriate procedures keeping in mind the best interest
of the child. Since the evaluation of maturity takes place before it is proved that the child has
committed the crime it is against the principle of presumption of innocence. Therefore,
various provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 are not just, fair and reasonable and
violate Articles 14, 15(3) and 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was framed to safeguard,
rehabilitate and reform the children who have committed any crime following the reformative
theory of punishment. The act has proven itself capable enough to reform and rehabilitate the
children but only to an extent. We can see that many provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
is in conundrum with many articles of the Indian Constitution. As the society advances the
rules and regulations governing the society also evolve, this is the very nature of
advancement and with time we can see this evolution in Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.