Youth Criminal Responsibility
Youth criminal responsibility refers to the age and conditions under which a minor (child or adolescent) may be held legally responsible for a criminal act. The goal is to balance:
Child protection (recognizing immaturity and potential for reform)
Public safety
Accountability appropriate to age and mental development
Key Principles Behind Youth Criminal Responsibility
Children lack full mental maturity → less culpable than adults.
Reform over punishment → rehabilitation is the goal.
Diversion → avoid exposing children to the adult criminal justice system.
Best interest of the child → a constitutional and international standard.
Graded responsibility → age brackets often determine levels of culpability.
In India, these principles are embodied in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which defines a juvenile as anyone below 18, but allows 16–18-year-olds to be tried as adults for heinous offences after a psychological assessment.
DETAILED CASE LAWS (More Than Five)
1. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005)
Key Issue: Whether the relevant date for determining juvenility is the date of offence or the date of trial.
Summary:
The Supreme Court held that juvenility must be determined as of the date of the commission of the offence, not the date of arrest or trial. This became a major safeguard for children who may be above 18 by the time the case reaches court.
Importance:
Prevents children from losing juvenile protections due to trial delays.
Strengthened the interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act in favour of minors.
2. Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2009)
Key Issue: Retrospective application of the Juvenile Justice Act (2000).
Summary:
The Court held that the Juvenile Justice Act applies retrospectively, meaning even persons who were under 18 at the time of the offence but over 18 during trial or at the time of the Act’s enforcement would still be treated as juveniles.
Importance:
Ensured uniformity: anyone under 18 at the time of the offence is a juvenile, irrespective of the Act's date.
Focus on the reformative approach.
3. Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013)
Key Issue: Raising the age of juvenility to 18 — constitutional validity.
Summary:
After the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, there was public debate on reducing the age of juvenility. The Supreme Court refused, upholding 18 years as the cutoff. It ruled that:
The age is supported by psychological and scientific research.
International standards (UNCRC) also recognize 18.
Children, even if involved in serious crime, should be given a chance at reform.
Importance:
Affirmed rehabilitation as the core of juvenile justice.
Blocked public demand to lower juvenile age.
4. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2014)
Key Issue: Challenge to differential treatment of juveniles and adults in serious crimes.
Summary:
Petitioners argued that juveniles aged 16–18 committing serious crimes should not be treated differently from adults. The Supreme Court rejected this challenge, stating:
Psychological and emotional maturity differ significantly.
Children have a greater capacity for reform.
The principle of proportionality must consider age.
Importance:
Strengthened the legal foundation that juveniles must be treated separately.
Paved the way for nuanced modifications in the 2015 Act.
5. Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of U.P. (2010)
Key Issue: Benefit of juvenility even at the stage of appeal.
Summary:
The Court held that claims of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after conviction. If evidence proves the accused was under 18 at the time of the offence, the court must apply the Act.
Importance:
Ensures no juvenile is wrongly punished under adult law.
Highlights the protective intent of legislation.
6. Mukesh & Anr. v. State (Nirbhaya case observations related to juvenility, 2017)
Key Issue: Debate about the juvenile accused in a brutal gang rape.
Summary:
Though the primary case concerned adults, the Court discussed the separate treatment of the juvenile involved. It reaffirmed the need for:
Scientific evaluation of mental capacity.
Distinction between “child in conflict with law” and adult offender.
While the juvenile was treated under the 2000 Act, the case influenced public pressure leading to the 2015 amendment allowing 16–18-year-olds to be tried as adults for heinous crimes.
Importance:
Triggered Parliament’s amendment creating the psychological assessment mechanism.
Highlighted flaws in the earlier law.
7. Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2014)
Key Issue: Proof of age in juvenile claims.
Summary:
The Court held that age determination must rely on a hierarchy of evidence:
Matriculation certificate
Birth certificate
Medical age test
The priority is to rely on documentary evidence first.
Importance:
Prevents manipulation of age claims.
Creates a uniform standard for courts.
COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL CASES (Short Summaries for Perspective)
8. Roper v. Simmons (US Supreme Court, 2005)
Held that death penalty for juveniles is unconstitutional due to underdeveloped judgment and higher capacity for reform.
9. Miller v. Alabama (US Supreme Court, 2012)
Mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juveniles violates constitutional protections.
10. Canadian Case: R. v. D.B. (2008)
Recognized the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness for youth offenders.
Conclusion
Youth criminal responsibility is shaped by:
Scientific understanding of adolescent psychology
International child rights standards
Constitutional principles
Case law ensuring both fairness and protection
The cases above collectively emphasize that juveniles are different from adults, require special legal treatment, and should be given opportunities for rehabilitation while ensuring justice for victims.
RELATED Blog
0 comments