The Juvenile Justice Paradox After 2018: Balancing Childhood, Crime And Constitutional Accountability
- IJLLR Journal
- Aug 4
- 2 min read
Aditya Sarkar, B.A. LL.B. (Hons), Bennett University, School of Law
ABSTRACT
The change in juvenile justice regime in post-Nirbhaya India is one of the most controversial changes in the modern constitutional criminal jurisprudence. The introduction of the preliminary assessment process in Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 represents a move away from the age-centered approach to juvenile responsibility and a new approach based on developmental maturity. There is a clear contradiction between the constitutional mandate to rehabilitate children and the legitimate expectations of the society for accountability in the case of heinous offences, which was addressed in this reform; the reform, however, set the stage for possible inconsistencies, subjectivity, and unequal treatment. This lack of statutory guidance on the developmental maturity assessment has left a great deal of discretion to Juvenile Justice Boards, giving rise to fundamental concerns about equality before law, procedural fairness and the constitutional legitimacy of the different treatment of similarly situated children.
This paper contends that the topic of constitutional enforcement is not whether older adolescents should be held accountable, but how they are held accountable in a way that is transparent, scientifically grounded and respects their rights, versus by judicial intuition and public outcry. The study relies on constitutional doctrine, legislative history, Supreme Court jurisprudence, developmental psychology and neuroscience, comparative legal systems and international child rights standards to review the current framework and suggest a change to a Constitutional Accountability Framework which represents a re-thinking of accountability as a constitutional protection rather than a punishment. It argues that the concepts of rehabilitation and accountability are complementary constitutional values, and suggests a set of nationally standardised maturity assessment protocols, multidisciplinary expert participation, procedural safeguards and institutional reforms that will enhance child rights protection as well as public trust in the developing juvenile justice system in India.
Keywords: Juvenile Justice; Constitutional Accountability; Developmental Maturity; Juvenile Criminal Responsibility; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15; Preliminary Assessment; Constitutional Jurisprudence; Child Rights; Rehabilitation; Procedural Fairness; Developmental Psychology; Juvenile Justice Boards; Comparative Juvenile Justice; UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
