JUVENILE JUSTICE IN HEINOUS OFFENCES: BALANCING REFORM AND RETRIBUTION
AUTHOR – R ASHITHA ZARAH, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)
BEST CITATION – R ASHITHA ZARAH, JUVENILE JUSTICE IN HEINOUS OFFENCES: BALANCING REFORM AND RETRIBUTION, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (3) OF 2026, PG. 47-53, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/WTIP6092
INTRODUCTION
India’s juvenile justice system stands at a critical juncture, grappling with the tension between rehabilitative ideals and demands for retributive justice in cases of heinous offences. Recent high-profile incidents, such as the Narsingi gang-rape in Hyderabad that occurred in February of 2026, where police seek to try juvenile offenders as adults, underscore this dilemma. This paper examines the evolving framework under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [1]as against 2026’s spate of juvenile-involved sexual violence, advocating a nuanced balance.
The core philosophy of juvenile justice in India has historically prioritized reform over punishment, recognizing children’s malleability and societal responsibility in delinquency.[2] Rooted in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which India ratified in 1992, the system views juveniles as ‘children in conflict with law’ (CCL) rather than criminals, emphasizing rehabilitation through Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs).[3] However, the 2012 Nirbhaya case, involving a juvenile co-accused, ignited public outrage, leading to the JJ Act, 2015’s provision for trying 16-18-year-olds as adults in heinous offences after JJB assessment.[4]
Heinous offences, defined under section 2(33) of the JJ Act is acts punishable by seven years or more imprisonment (e.g., rape under POCSO Act, murder) such crimes trigger preliminary inquiries under section 15.[5] The JJB evaluates the juvenile’s mental/physical capacity to commit the crime, considering age, circumstances, and potential for reform before transfer to a Children’s Court. This shift marked a departure from the absolute protection under the 2000 Act, reflecting retribution’s encroachment amid rising juvenile apprehensions in violent crimes.[6]
[1] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015
[2] United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3, art 40.
[3] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 4.
[4] Subramanian Swamy v Raju (2014) 8 SCC 390 .
[5] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 15.
[6] National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2013 (Compendium, Ministry of Home Affairs 2013) ch 10.