Published Paper Details:

The brutal assault, gang rape and murder of a female in Delhi in December, 2012, by six men, in which one of the accused was seventeen years old juvenile, raised a debate on the age limit of juvenile in India. Under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000, the maximum sentence that could be awarded to juvenile was three years of of detention in a remand home, irrespective of the gravity of the offence. This led to tremendous public outcry demanding a change in the juvenile justice laws, lowering the age limit of juveniles, and stricter punishment for juveniles committing grave offences like rape and murder. Justice J.S Verma Committee which was constituted to amend the criminal laws and to examine the deficiencies of existing criminal law regime governing sexual assault against women rejected the demand for lowering the age of juvenile to sixteen. He opined there should be stricter implementation of the 2000 Act and need to need to reform and restructure the existing juvenile justice and welfare system. However the government disregarded these recommendations and to tackle the alarming situation Parliament passed The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. The basic objective of this Act is to set deterrence standards for juvenile offenders and to protect the rights of the victim. The 2015 Act differentiates between petty, serious, and heinous offences, and proposes to treat juvenile offenders who commit �heinous offences� between the ages of sixteen and eighteen as adults by putting them to trial under the criminal justice system. The main object of this paper is to identify the Reasons as to why a juvenile could commit heinous crimes and to discuss whether reducing the age can result in retributive justice rather than reformative and restorative justice.