“RECONSIDERING THE ADULT TRIAL OF JUVENILES AGED 16–18 UNDER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT PROCESS, JUDICIAL TRENDS, AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.”
AUTHOR – JOSHNA AISHWARYA A, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)
BEST CITATION – JOSHNA AISHWARYA A, “RECONSIDERING THE ADULT TRIAL OF JUVENILES AGED 16–18 UNDER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT PROCESS, JUDICIAL TRENDS, AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.”, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (3) OF 2026, PG. 138-145, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/LEPX2544
ABSTRACT-
India’s approach to juvenile offenders was subject to a major shift with the introduction of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. For the first time, juvenile offenders between the ages of 16 and 18 could be brought to trial for the commission of “heinous offences” as adult offenders. This shift was the result of the unprecedented debate that was triggered in the wake of the Delhi gang rape incident in 2012. The mental and physical capacity of juvenile offenders to commit and understand the consequences of the commission of “heinous offences” can be analyzed through the “preliminary assessment” method that is adopted by the Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) in the country. However, there is a serious issue of due process, development science, constitutional protection, and compliance with India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, even though it is an attempt to achieve a balance in terms of responsibility and child protection.
The institutional limitations of JJB, practical aspects of preliminary evaluation, and consequences of transfer of juveniles to adult courts are severely analyzed in this essay. To prove that the adult trial system is based on wrong assumptions about teenage guilt, without considering scientific knowledge of brain development, it evaluates factual facts, judicial interpretations, and scientific studies. It also identifies deficiencies in procedural protection, serious irregularities in judicial reasoning, and lack of standardized norms in psychological evaluation, making it prone to misuse and arbitrariness.
In fact, the article argues that despite being grounded in public opinion, the adult trial clause undermines the rehabilitative basis of juvenile justice and has the potential to breach constitutional principles of justice, proportionality, and dignity. For the creation of a truly child-centered system of juvenile justice, it suggests that there is an urgent need to review Section 15 in an integrated manner.