Beyond The Cliff Edge: Challenging The Binary Of Juvenile Justice In India
- IJLLR Journal
- Nov 12, 2025
- 2 min read
Nivedita Krishnakumar, B.A LL.B. (Hons.), Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
ABSTRACT
The rigid application of the age of majority in Indian criminal law, has created an unjust "cliff edge" of culpability that is misaligned with the foundational principle of mens rea. Current legal fiction, which presumes all individuals under 18 are incapable of forming criminal intent (doli incapax), is psychologically and neurologically outdated - rendering the binary distinction between "child" and "adult" untenable for justice. This paper explores how the law can be truly rehabilitative towards juveniles.
Mens rea or the guilty mind is the corner stone of criminal justice. It is the principle that distinguishes a criminal act from a mere accident or a natural event. The philosophical and moral foundation of this principle comes from affording justification to the punishment awarded to offenders. Criminal punishment is a profound exercise of state power involving – in no soft terms – the deliberate infliction of suffering, justified only by its deservedness. In alignment with the fundamental principles of personal autonomy and free will, a person deserves punishment not simply because they caused harm, but because they chose and intended to cause such harm. This ties back to the Latin maxim of Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea which translates to “an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty” encapsulating the morally neutral nature of a physical act when it Is not accompanied by guilty intent. A person or an offender can therefore only be held accountable for his conscious choices. Further, mens rea allows a differentiation between crimes so that they can be graded by way of their seriousness. This hierarchy of mens rea – from intention to knowledge to recklessness to negligence – creates a ladder of culpability. Punishments imposed are therefore more likely to be proportional to the harm caused, as well as to the offender’s level of moral blameworthiness. An intentional killing is therefore punished more severely than a reckless one, which is subsequently punished more severely than a negligent one.
