Revisiting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility in India: Bridging Law, Science, and Global Ethics
~ By Huzaifa Hasan
Abstract:
It remains a subject of discussion in juvenile justice because the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) in India is governed by the provisions of the ‘Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act)’.[1] [2]. The Act reinforces the philosophy of the UNCRC tilted toward restorative justice, yet the provisions for prosecuting older juveniles as adults bring into question the delicate balance between public safety and child rights.[3][4][5] Once again, variances of implementation from state to state due to socio-economic, cultural, and governance factors fuel inconsistent treatment and outcomes for these juveniles.[6][7][8] These international MACR standards vary immensely, making it hard for India to fit in with global standards.[9] [10] [11] Thus, present inequalities should be bridged with localized research and interventions addressing restorative justice, while also guaranteeing the well-being of children.
Introduction
The exemption of children from criminal liability is rooted in the legal principle of doli incapax, the presumption that a child is incapable of forming the necessary criminal intent (mens rea) due to lack of moral and cognitive maturity. This doctrine recognizes that criminal responsibility must align with a child’s capacity to understand right from wrong. The minimum age for criminal responsibility represents a dilemma occupying a space amid competing logics-namely, justice, deterrence, and rights of children. In India, the debate centers around the “Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJAct)”, which retains a MACR as one of the lowest in the world (7 years) while allowing for the adult trial of those aged between 16 and 18 for grave crimes. This very framework, encapsulated amid a colonial inheritance with socio-political crises in post-independent India, diverges starkly from international human rights norms, which uphold principles of rehabilitation over retribution. In this article, a critique of India’s MACR regime is conducted historically and comparatively and from a jurisprudential angle. It attempts, among other things, to probe into its relevance to developmental science, particularly neuroscience, and suggest reforms to address the contradictions embedded therein.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Key Provisions
Establishment of the ‘Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)’, superintendence and implementation of the Act is one of the recognisable provisions of the ‘JJ Act 2015’. The role of JJB is ascribed to ensure an environment for development and rehabilitation for juvenile [1][4]. Further, it provides several definitions concerning Child in Conflict with Law, and also such as orphan, abandoned and surrendered children, and defines how they will be dealt with concerning the types of offenses [6][7]. The focus is on rehabilitation as opposed to punishment which is in line with the international standards as set forth in the ‘United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)’, ratified by India in 1992. [3][8] [15][4].
Contemporary Indian jurisprudence
Judicial decisions have significantly shaped India’s MACR and juvenile justice framework:
Contemporary Indian jurisprudence in juvenile justice constantly strikes a balance between the protection extended to children and the accountability placed upon society. In “Kakoo v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1976)”, the Supreme Court maintained the rule of Section 83 of the IPC being applied at the discretion of the Court where it emphasized that the individual evaluations rather than blanket liability must be relied upon. It held that children under 12 cannot be made liable for offenses unless it is proved that they are mature enough, thereby promoting psychological evaluation rather than other standards. Years later still, in “Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013)”, the Court validated the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, stating that 18 would remain upper age of juvenility despite demands to bring it down to 16 after Nirbhaya since it would be unwelcome in light of India’s obligations under UNCRC and undermine constitutional protections of juveniles. “Subramanian Swamy v. Raju Thr. (2014)” came a year later to challenge the constitutionality of classifying everybody under the age of 18 as a juvenile, and while this was upheld by the court, the further amendment in 2015 brought in a nuanced treatment for 16-18 years, where individuals found involved in horrific offenses might be tried as adults. This drafted compromise was induced by societal concerns. The judgment in “Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020)” opened the doors for interpretation concerning “heinous offenses” under the 2015 Act by disqualifying all offenses punishable with a term of imprisonment of 3-7 years as heinous offenses, whereby shielding younger juveniles against adult trial and giving legislative significance toward proportionality and fairness.
International Norms and MACR
On an international level the age at which a child is held criminally responsible varies a lot. in the ‘United Nations convention on the rights of the child’ (UNCRC), it was recommended that a country should have minimum age criminal responsibility-further it should not be to low or justified in accordance with its development [20]. It states that consideration of developmental charges should be factored in, as this is intended to emphasize and advocate levels for prioritizing rehabilitation rather than harsher punishment.
The United States has no federal MACR and leaves it to the discretion of each state to set its own standards. currently, 22 states have set MACRs that range between 6 years and 11 years [21] . Examples include establishing a MACR of 12 by states such as California and Massachusetts, which are much closer to the international norms [21][22]. This entirely shows the absence of universal standard on much fractured application of juvenile justice systems compared to more sticking systems found within other countries.
Minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) varies in the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom. As for England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, the MACR is 10 years, among the lowest in Europe. Scotland, on the other hand, has increased its MACR to 12 years since 2019 from the former 8 years in order to conform with international standards. This range of divergence presents continuing arguments in the entirety United Kingdom over the best age with which a child can be held responsible for the crime.
Comparative Analysis with International Standards
The notion of the ‘Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility’ (MACR) has been in many juvenile justice systems’ laws worldwide and is an aspect of bringing national law into conformity with international standards for the protection of children’s rights. The ‘United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency’, also known as the Riyadh Guidelines, state that the orientation of the youth should be directed towards the development of positive attitudes for not engaging in criminal behavior from 1990. These guidelines declare that society must work together for total development in youth and that implementation is to take cognizance of the economic, social, and cultural context of each country [9][1][2].
Internationally, MACR varies significantly, as detailed in Age of criminal responsibility. [40] [41]A comprehensive list includes:
Countries | MACR |
England and Wales, and Northern Ireland | 10 years [41] |
Scotland | 12 years (raised from 8 in 2020) [42] |
Netherlands and Canada | 12 years [43] |
Sweden, Finland, Norway | 15 years [43] |
United States | Varies by state, with federal minimum at 11, ranging from 7 in Florida to no minimum in 24 states [44] |
The “UNCRC (The United Nations Convention of Rights of Child)” ratified by India in 1992 does not fix age for MACR. However, it has a recommendation of at least 14 years through the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, noted in Major UN human rights review highlights need for Australia to raise the age of criminal responsibility. The evolution of this recommendation, from 12 in 2007 to 14 in later general comments, indicates child development research suggesting that real criminal intent does not exist in a child’s psyche at quite an early stage. India’s MACR of 7 is therefore among the least in the world, even below that of the median 12 reported in Justice for Children Briefing No.4: The minimum age of criminal responsibility, thus leading to issues of compliance with international child rights standards.
International Perspectives
The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), in comparison to global standards, has varied among different jurisdictions. An instance is the 2008 Child Justice Act in South Africa, which instituted a MACR of 10 years; the need for periodic review of the act was emphasized to assess its impacts [34][38]. Research suggests that while such reforms would strengthen the potentiality for youth assessment, it would also burden critical issues such as delays in case processing and increased demand on mental health resources [34][39].
Recent Developments and Reforms in India
There have been major changes and reforms in the juvenile justice system in India during the past years especially after the enactment of the “Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.” [21][23]This Act aims at giving a juvenile justice framework in India that coincides with international standards, more particularly the one on the “UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”, which India has ratified in 1992 [4][1]. The primary focus for all the changes in the law is on the rights and rehabilitation of the CCL, with “juvenile” being replaced with “child” or “child in conflict with law” so as to remove any stigma that may come along from the former terminology [4][3].
Conclusion and Suggestions
India is now facing a crossroads with respect to its minimum age of criminal responsibility. Because the JJ Act 2015 operates within the bleak world of violent crime, its colonial MACR and adultification of adolescents tend to destroy even the rehabilitative ideal. A recalibration built upon developmental science, procedural fairness, and restorative justice would result in a system that uplifts rather than absolves or demonizes. As the global consensus shifts toward higher MACRs, India must choose: Will it remain tethered to 19th-century penal logic, or embrace a future where the law sees children not as threats, but as potential?
Hereinafter, the author would like to provide some constructive suggestions:
The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) in India should similarly meet international standards and be raised from 7 years to a position that allows for greater sensitivity to developmental science, ideally somewhere between the ages of 12 and 14. This recognizes developmental science, which sees evolving cognitive and emotional maturity in children: really, no penal accountability can be placed upon children below a particular age since they may not themselves be able to understand the consequences of their actions.
The current model of blanket adult criminal liability for 16- to 18-year-olds accused of heinous offenses should place more emphasis on an individual assessment of the offender that incorporates psychological evaluations and maturity assessments. In other words, determining criminal intent and accountability should be further governed by facts and circumstances of the case and evidence, rather than by rigid criteria based on age.
In addition, it is vital to de-stigmatize language surrounding children in conflict with the law. Across the board in legal and public discourse, the term “child in conflict with law” should popularize “juvenile offender,” establishing a child rights approach as espoused by the Juvenile Justice Act. Such a reforming of language is essential in reducing stigma and promoting a much kinder, rehabilitative justice system.
Author’s Bio- Huzaifa Hasan is a fourth-year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
References
[1]: “Procedure in Relation to Children in Conflict with Law Under the Juvenile Justice Act
[2]: Juvenile Courts & Justice: Similarities & Differences – Edge Law Partners
[3]: Juvenile Justice System: History and International Comparisons
[4]: Children in Conflict with Law – De Facto Judiciary
[5]: YouTube Video on Juvenile Justice (Title TBD)
[6]: How Does the Juvenile Justice Act Compare to the IPC?
- https://law4u.in/top-answer/404/how-does-the-juvenile-justice-act-compare-to-the-ipc#google_vignette
[7]: SSRN Paper on Juvenile Justice (Abstract ID: 3664765)
[8]: International Standards for Juvenile Responsibility – Connecticut General Assembly
[9]: All About Juvenile Justice Act – iPleaders
[10]: Criminal Law Journal Article on Juvenile Justice (Volume 4, Issue 1)
[11]: IJMER Article on Juvenile Justice (Volume 13, Issue 8)
IJIRT Published Paper on Juvenile Justice (IJIRT167077)
[13]: Navigating Juvenile Justice: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis – IJIRL
[14]: Juvenile Justice Article – Edition MV India
[15]: India Juvenile Justice System – Law for Everything
[16]: Age Boundaries of the Juvenile Justice System – OJJDP Model Programs Guide
[17]: Juvenile Justice Act – BYJU’S Free IAS Prep
[18]: The Juvenile Justice Act: A Primer – Ajit Kakkar
[19]: Juvenile Justice Article – Manupatra (Muzaffar Hussain Mir)
[20]: Juvenile Justice System – Drishti Judiciary Editorial
[21]: Juvenile Justice: Children’s Rights – Times of India Readers’ Blog
[22]: Age of Criminal Responsibility of Juveniles in India vs. Other Countries – Desi Kaanoon
[23]: Landmark Juvenile Supreme Court Cases in India – iPleaders
[24]: Juvenile Age Matrix – Interstate Commission for Juveniles
[25]: Bringing More Teens Home: Raising the Age Without Expanding Secure Confinement – The Sentencing Project
[26]: Difference Between Child and Juvenile – Drishti Judiciary
[27]: JETIR Paper on Juvenile Justice (Issue EQ06050)
[28]: Juvenile or Adult? Crime and Laws, India and Abroad – Hindustan Times
[29]: Analysis of India’s Flawed Juvenile Justice Labyrinth – Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
[30]: Rehabilitation of Juvenile Offenders Under JJA 2015 – IJALR
[31]: Civil Law Journal Article on Juvenile Justice (Volume 4, Issue 1)
[32]: Juvenile Justice Reform: Balancing Accountability and Rehabilitation – Lawful Legal
[33]: Rehabilitation Centre for Juvenile Under JJ Act – Jus Scriptum Law
[34]: The Juvenile Justice System in India and Children Who Commit Serious Offences – OIJJ
[35]: Child in Conflict with Law – Lawful Legal
[36]: Juvenile Justice System Information – JJC DHC
[37]: The Curious Case of Juvenile Justice: A Critical Analysis of the Indian Juvenile Justice System – IJIRL
[38]: Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility – PMG South Africa
[39]: The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2021 – PRS India
[40]: Quick Facts: The Age of Criminal Responsibility in Australia and Youth Incarceration – Mondaq
[41]: Crime, Justice and the Law: The Judicial System – Direct.gov.uk (UK Archive)
[42]: Raising the Age of Criminal Responsibility – Scottish Government
[43]: Age of Criminal Responsibility in Europe – CRIN
[44]: Age Boundaries in Juvenile Justice Systems – National Governors Association