Relevancy Of Age In Juvenile Delinquency Cases

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:55:09.326245+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:05:36.538Z

RELEVANCY OF AGE IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

CASES Samriddhi Upadhyay, LLB, Law Centre 2, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

ABSTRACT

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was brought in to consolidate and amend the law relating to children in conflict with law, and children in need of care and protection, by providing for proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their development needs and by adopting a child-friendly approach, in the adjudication and disposal of matters related to children. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was replaced by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) in view of the brutal gang rape case that took place in Delhi on 16th December, 2012 where one of the convicts was a 17-year minor. The Act controversially lowered the age of majority from 18 to 16 in exceptional cases, sparking debate over whether it is a viable solution. The Act was criticized by many social workers and NGOs.

In the past few years due to the increase in juvenile delinquency cases a need has been felt to reform the Act. The author argues for a more nuanced approach, where a juvenile’s maturity and intent are assessed individually, rather than relying solely on age. While the Act aims to protect minors, it must also ensure justice for victims, suggesting that in serious cases, minors should face penalties akin to adults, coupled with reformative measures to prevent future crimes.

INTRODUCTION

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) aims to protect the rights of the children and makes custody the last resort, for the shortest period of time, due to the ill effects that it may have on the minds of the children. It is believed that a lot of offences are committed by the children due to the socio-economic circumstances they are brought up in. Most of the minors who are the subjects under this Act have been denied their right to proper education, healthcare and shelter. The 2015 Act reduced the age of majority from 18 years to 16 years for exceptional cases only but in the present situation, is this the solution that one needs?

The reason behind the selection of this topic is the recent Pune Porsche case where a 17-year minor who was driving in an intoxicated state, got involved in a road accident where his car hit another two-wheeler and killed the two persons riding it. He was charged under various provisions of the IPC1 and the Motor Vehicles Act2. The point of contention being whether this circumstance will be considered an exceptional situation and the age of majority will be reduced to 16 as per The Act. But these days children are maturing faster hence, a 14-year child possesses the reasoning capacity of an 18-year adult. Will the legislation be replaced again and the age of majority will be lowered further?

This is not a logical solution as it is not possible to reduce the age of majority every time a child younger than the decided age commits a crime and a child of tender age cannot be given the same punishment as an adult and kept with adult prisoners. What should ideally be considered is the maturity of the accused, which varies from person to person and hence, this needs to be ascertained on a case-to-case basis. Thus, the author here will point out the shortcomings of and improvements needed in the present legislation. REASON BEHIND THE CHANGE IN LEGISLATION A juvenile is someone who has not attained the age of maturity and cannot differentiate between what is right or wrong.

Before the adoption of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000) a person below the age of 18 years could not be tried as an adult even in exceptional circumstances and was to be treated as a minor. As per the Convention on

1 The Indian Penal Code, 1860

2 The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

the Rights of the Child3 (CRC) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly a ‘child’ is anyone below the age of 18 years. But this led to gross injustice to the victim in the Nirbhaya gang rape4 case where one of the accused who was of 17 years of age at the time of commission of the crime was sentenced to only three years of imprisonment and escaped the death penalty completely, even though, he had committed a heinous offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 i. e. , an offence for which the minimum punishment is seven years or more. It was found after monitoring the behaviour of the juvenile that he was well aware of his actions and the consequences to that. Hence, considering him a juvenile and sentencing him to a punishment of only 3 years was an injustice to the victim.

Due to this the previous Act was replaced by the present Act as per which in exceptional circumstances the age of majority shall be considered as 16 instead of 18 and a preliminary assessment is to be conducted with respect to the mental capacity of the accused and his ability to commit a crime of such nature. This recourse is taken in cases where the accused has committed a crime of heinous nature. This change in legislation was condemned by various social workers and NGOs. But what the legislative body failed to take into account was whether the lowering down of age from 18 to

16 years was the solution that was needed? Is it enough to give the appropriate punishment to

the wrongdoer irrespective of their age? AN OVERVIEW OF THE PUNE PORSCHE CASE In May, 2024 a minor who was driving his father’s Porsche in an intoxicated state hit another two-wheeler which killed two young IT professionals riding it. This case garnered national attention when the minor was released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board 15 hours after the incident after making him write a 300-word long essay and giving him directions to attend a 15-day safe driving programme. Later, this decision was revoked by the Juvenile Justice Board and he was sent to an observation home. The High Court at Bombay later released the accused on bail taking into consideration, the trauma experienced by both the victim and his family.

The High Court observed that the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was passed in an “absolutely illegal and mechanical manner” and stated “We allow the habeas corpus5 and order his release”. His father is also facing charges for evidence tampering and permitting a minor to drive without a license as also serving alcohol to a minor. In this case the accused was

3 Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

4 Mukesh& Anr v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & Ors, 2017 6 SCC 1

5 Under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India

charged u/s 304A of the IPC which deals with “Death caused by a negligent act” and the maximum imprisonment under this section is 2 years therefore, the accused cannot be treated as an adult since it does not deal with a heinous offence. The police later added the punishment under section 304 of the IPC which deals with culpable homicide for which the imprisonment is 10 years. But the question remains whether these two charges can co-exist? In my opinion this case should be judged on the basis of its facts. Here, the minor accused was 17 year 8 months old i. e. , on the verge of attaining majority. He was fully aware of the act that he was doing and the consequences which it would bring. Alcohol was not fed to him forcefully or by misrepresentation; he knew that driving in an intoxicated state is harmful to him as well as other pedestrians and to others on the road.

Nevertheless, he set out in his car without a driving license. The Judge at the High Court at Bombay termed the order, stating him to be kept in an observation home, an illegal order, but did not take into consideration the illegality of the act of the minor accused. Being a minor, he cannot possess a driving license, thus, the act of driving in an intoxicated state without a license itself is illegal as per S. 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The presumption of knowledge can be attached to his act, even though he had not attained majority but he can be said to have the requisite maturity. In these circumstances relaxing his punishment owing to his minority and ignoring the damage caused by his actions should not be a part of the course of action.

What is worse is that even when the minor has been given so many relaxations by the law his family is trying to tamper with the evidences and trying to bribe the witnesses in order to save him. This way the accused would not find his actions to be morally incorrect and might commit a similar crime later because he knows that his family will protect him at all costs. The legislation should be drafted in such a way that no minor is treated in an irrational manner but, if it is clear from the undisputed facts of the case that the minor has the requisite knowledge and maturity then he or she should be held guilty and liable for his actions. Minors are found involved in petty crimes like theft, assault, chain snatching and drug abuse on a regular basis, but recently their involvement in heinous crimes like murder, rape, dacoity and robbery has been on the rise.

It is not just this one incident but various other incidents which have necessitated that the law in relation to the treatment of minor accused be reformed. SUGGESTIVE CHANGES TO THE PRESENT LEGISLATION The legislature must aim at devising a law which is in the best interests of the victim as well as the minor. Mere lowering of age is not a permanent solution as another child of a lower age might commit another extreme crime, then the legislature will have to lower the age of majority even further. This issue cannot be tackled by the regular conventional approaches. Rather, the legislature has to think outside the box. In my opinion when it is found that a minor has committed a crime or done any illegal activity, the nature of crime should be ascertained. ➢ If it is a petty offence then the reason behind committing the crime should be understood by understanding the child’s psychology.

The matter should be handled in a way that the probability of the child committing any such crime in the future is reduced. Children involved in petty offences should not be sent to prison, rather, they should be sent to reformative centres where they should be educated in such a way that the possibility of them committing such crimes or anything worse is drastically reduced. Their time at the reformation centres should be appropriately utilised and when they step out, then that should be with a changed mindset. ➢ If the minor in consideration commits a serious offence and it is proved on proper investigation and after studying the undisputed facts of the case that he had the knowledge of the gravity of the offence and the consequences that it would entail and there was no imminent danger justifying such act then the child should not be excused owing to his minority.

As per the present legislation if a minor commits a serious offence, then he cannot be tried as an adult but that is unfair to the victim. Talking about the present case where the minor is under 18 i. e. , a few months shy from becoming an adult, it is much likely that the High Court at Bombay would rule in his favour. The accused recently completed the 15-day safe driving programme which was one of the bail conditions enumerated by the Court. But is this punishment enough to make him understand that his act was illegal and unlawful and be rest assured that he won’t commit such an act or maybe something worse again? Is it fair to the victims of this accident who were innocently killed by the negligence of a person on the verge of turning 18 who will eventually be acquitted because he had not turned 18 yet?

The legislation aims at protecting the rights and interest of minors, but that should not happen by divesting another person off their rights completely. The Court had let him out owing to his minority, but it is the same child who was in the bar getting intoxicated and drove off in a car without a number plate then his minority did not come in the way. When a child in such young age will see his parents getting involved in illegal activities as well, it is unlikely that he would understand the fact that his actions were illegal. Here, the actions should be taken into consideration and not the age. In my opinion, in this case, the accused should be given the same punishment as an 18-year would be given and, the punishment should not be reduced owing to his minority.

The minor should also be sent to a reformative centre during his jail time to prevent him from committing any such crimes in future, once he is let out. ➢ If any minor commits a heinous offence and it is proved that he knew the consequences of such offence, had the required maturity to commit the offence and there was no imminent danger justifying such act, his age should not be taken into consideration. He should be treated the same way as an adult prisoner would be. If the gravity of his act requires him to be punished with a death penalty, unless otherwise proved he should be given that punishment. The law might seem to be too harsh as per a few but it is time that the laws be made more stringent so as to dissuade the minors from getting involved in such acts. In the recent past, there has been a rise of minors getting involved in heinous offences.

There is a need for the legislature to make laws that are flexible enough for the case to be decided on the basis of the intelligence and maturity of such minor when it comes to offences committed by minors otherwise, they would continue repeating the same in the garb of their minority.

CONCLUSION

It scares one from the within to see a child of 15 or 16 years of age or even lesser commit a rape or a pre-planned cold-blooded murder. The aim of the legislature while making this law was to protect the rights of the minors and save them from getting any such punishment that would negatively impact their lives and minds. Under the Act the Courts have been regarded as parens patriae6 of minor children that allows the Courts to act as the minor’s guardian since, they cannot take care of themselves and protect their rights and interests. But the right to fair trial guaranteed to the citizens as per the Constitution is snatched from the victims in all this leading to miscarriage of justice which should not be the case as everyone has the right to a

6 Latin for ‘parent of the nation’

fair trial and justice, irrespective of the age of the accused. The question here is not the age of the child in conflict with law, but the fact that he had the requisite maturity to commit the offence. Such children cannot be treated as minor anymore because they are a threat to the society and can cause harm in innumerable ways. Even if they are of tender age, in various cases it has been found that the psychological age of that child is that of an adult which means that the child possesses the intelligence and maturity of a person who is 18-years old or more. It has been found from various studies that the reason behind the increase in a child’s psychological age is dependent on various factors, like, what the child consumes online, the society in which the child grows up, the environment at their house, the quality of education, etc.

These factors have an impact on the actions of children. Thus, this problem needs to be tackled at a grass root level and until then the legislators should alter the present legislation and put the idea of justice over and above the interest of any such minor.