Abstract:
This article examines the critical intersection of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[1] — namely, the right to life and dignity — with the juvenile justice system in India, including evolving statutory requirements and judicial interpretations thereof. The article is also rooted in both domestic constitutional mandates (Articles 15 and 39)[2], and international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)[3], as well as Article 21 of the Constitution, to define what it means for the State to prioritize restorative justice over punitive measures for young offenders. Of particular interest to this analysis is the new legislative framework introduced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[4], allowing for juveniles ages sixteen to eighteen to be prosecuted as adults for heinous crimes following the 2012 Delhi gang rape incidents.
The article illustrates the inherent tension between this punitive shift in US law and the neurodevelopmental realities of adolescence, contending that subjecting minors to the adult criminal justice system fundamentally threatens a minor’s constitutional right to a future of dignity. Additionally, the article analyzes significant judicial interventions by the Supreme Court of India, most notably in Subramanian Swamy v. Rajuand Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu. Each of these pivotal cases underscored the importance of the judiciary in tempering severe legislative actions by creating a presumption that all minors must undergo psychological and cognitive assessments before being transferred to adult courts. Ultimately, these judicial actions have contributed to establishing protections aimed at ensuring that all juveniles will be treated fairly under the terms of the Constitution.
Introduction:
The way children are treated in a society is a mirror of its values. Nelson Mandela’s quote captures this burden on the juvenile justice system in India.[5] Article 21 of India’s Constitution, which grants the right to life and personal liberty, is also significantly connected to juvenile justice. Following progressive judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court of India has established that the concept of “life” under Article 21 is not limited to merely animal existence, but includes the right to live with dignity as a human being. The loss of dignity for children charged with a crime is significant for an individual and reflects on society as a whole, creating an obligation to change from a punitive to a restorative model of justice for this population. This paper will explore how the right to dignity under Article 21 affects the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the significant impacts of trying children between sixteen and eighteen as adults.
The Constitutional and International Mandate for Dignity:
The legal authority and international treaty for protecting the human rights for children is not only through the Constitution of India but also through all international law ratified by India. The Constitution of India recognizes that children are not “just small adults”, but are entitled to special consideration, care and protection by the State. The State is empowered to create laws and programmes specifically to support children (see Article 15(3)), and is obligated to “render appropriate assistance to children…to enable them to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity” (see Article 39(f)). Together, these principles can be viewed as operative to giving effect to the fundamental human right to dignity as defined by Article 21.
The Crux of the Debate: The 16-18 Age Bracket
While the Constitution of India provides a broad legal basis and framework for the protection of children, India is also bound by international law and obligations established through India’s ratification and signature to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). In addition to the provisions of the Constitution of India regarding children, the UNCRC compels State Parties, including India, to “ensure (that) every child accused of a criminal offence shall be treated (in the best interests of the child)” and “in a manner that is consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth.” The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) was enacted to give effect to these constitutional and treaty mandates. Section 3 of the JJ Act outlines the principles established under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution with regard to protecting the dignity of the child—including the ‘Principle of Presumption of Innocence’ and the ‘Principle of Fresh Start’—by mandating the expungement of juvenile records and focusing on rehabilitation through observation homes, rather than incarceration in adult prisons.
Judicial Interventions Guarding Juvenile Dignity:
The tests of Article 21 under the juvenile justice system were tested as a result of the violent actions we all witnessed in 2012, as a result of the gang rape in Delhi. This event caused a huge amount of public outcry and led to changes in the juvenile justice system through statute law changes. As a result, new legislative changes were enacted regarding how to deal with youth between the ages of sixteen (16) and eighteen (18) years old. Specifically, Section 15 of the JJ Act of 2015 provides that if a juvenile is charged with a “heinous offence,” then they could be charged as adult offenders and tried in a Childrens Court.
This newly introduced legislative framework between public safety and punishment, and juvenile’s right to dignity, creates an irreconcilable conflict. The juvenile justice process is premised on providing a juvenile with the protection and rehabilitation that comes with their status as a juvenile offender. Criminal and psychological studies have shown that the adolescent brain, including the frontal cortex, which is responsible for impulse control and predicting risks, continues to develop throughout adolescence. As a result, there is a serious Article 21 issue with subjecting a neurologically immature person to the hard realities of the adult criminal justice system. The system may be failing in its obligation to reform a juvenile, thus violating that juvenile’s right to a dignified future.
Judicial Interventions Guarding Juvenile Dignity:
The Indian Supreme Court has always protected the rights of children by interpreting the Constitution of India, particularly when determining if the JJ Act was in line with the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India decided via the case of Subramanian Swamy v Raju[6] that it was constitutional to treat juveniles differently from adults and that the distinctions made between adult and juvenile offenders were rational as they were based upon the developmental processes that each child will go through as they grow.
The Supreme Court of India re-affirmed that the state has a responsibility to provide treatment for children as opposed to punishment, and that the juvenile system attempted to preserve human dignity. Moreover, there have been additional safeguards created by the Supreme Court limiting the transfer of children to an adult court in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur v Master Bholu.[7] The Supreme Court has recognized how serious the consequences of transferring children to an adult court are and, therefore, held that when there is a preliminary determination whether or not to transfer a child to an adult court, that decision needs to be based on the opinion of clinical psychologists, psychiatrists and child welfare workers, as well as doctors to assess the mental and physical capacity of a child to commit a crime and whether or not the child understands the consequences of the crime. Thus, the Supreme Court has provided additional procedural safeguards to protect the rights of children in the transfer process.
The Way Forward: Realizing a Restorative and Dignity-Centric Paradigm
Translating the theoretical foundations of safeguarding the dignity of juveniles established in statutory frameworks and judicial precedents in accordance with Article 21 into real-life experiences requires a multi-faceted approach; the need for a paradigm shift as to how the State administers justice arises from the inherent contradiction between the punitive transfer provisions of the 2015 Act and the restorative nature of the Constitution. To avoid the continued disillusionment of children who come into conflict with the law in terms of their basic rights, the following systemic/institutional/socio-economic changes need urgent attention.
1. Establishing Authentic Restorative Justice Principles
Although the existing juvenile justice framework utilizes positive descriptors to define its operations, the current system operates as a replacement retributive justice mechanism.
A substantive transition must occur to achieve a framework of authentic restorative justice.
This will mean eliminating the current adversarial view of youths as being offenders to a framework in which accountability, realization of the impact of the damage done and restoration of social order is the goal. Community service, mediation between victim and offender (as appropriate and deemed safe) and restitution programs for youths between the ages of 16 and 18 can create a higher sense of accountability for their negative behaviour than traditional incarceration will create. All of these restorative models are also congruent with the “Fresh Start” principle found in the JJ Act (i.e., ensure that the youth is treated with dignity and the community is made whole).
2. Improving the structure of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB’s) and Children Courts
The success of the JJ Act depends on the institutions responsible for implementing it at the local level. Presently, Juvenile Justice Boards are often overworked, underfunded, and do not have sufficient resources for specialized training to carry out complicated psychological evaluations. Going forward will require significant building capacity. Magistrates and social workers who are members of JJB’s must be continuously and mandatorily trained or sensitized in adolescent brain development, trauma-informed care, and in relation to the constitutional requirement of Article 21 in regards to children.
3.From Detention Centers to Therapeutic Environments:
The urgent need for reform of the physical and psychological environment of Observation and Special Homes. The reports on Observation and Special Homes frequently highlight overcrowding, horrible living conditions and a lack of rehabilitative activities which makes these homes a natural environment for recidivism. It is essentialthat these homes reflect the right to dignity by being transformed to therapeutic and educational environments.
The focus of the transformation of these facilities must be solely on the rehabilitative aspects of providing quality educational and vocational skills training and continuing psychiatric treatment/counseling to the children who are being housed in a facility that is denying them basic human dignity. The State will be in clear violation of Article 21 if it permits a child to be in a facility that does not provide for their basic human dignity. Providing adequate funding and regular independent audits and adherence to international standards of institutional care for children will be a starting point.
4. Addressing Extreme Poverty and Other Factors as Root Causes of Gang Aggression and Criminality
True realization of the Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution of India) and Right to Protection (Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India) cannot occur unless we look beyond the traditional exploitation of offenders through the punitive model and examine the socio-economic conditions of the offenders – especially those who come from marginalised communities where poverty, lack of educational opportunities, domestic violence and substance abuse are prevalent. The solution lies more in prevention than punishment. The State must develop and coordinate comprehensive policies for children in conflict with the law and children living in poverty – through developing an integrated strategy for juvenile justice and overall child welfare that addresses the link between poverty and gang violence /criminal activity.
5. Extensive Social Reintegration and ‘Aftercare’ Support Systems
Aftercare programs are essential in breaking the cycle of recidivism, as they provide the tools for successful reintegration into society. Specifically, these programs must help children re-enroll in schools, provide stipends while enrolled in vocational training, and provide ongoing mentoring. Equally important to preventing recidivism is the framework around the confidentiality of juvenile records. Strong protections should be in place to preserve the confidential nature of juvenile records to help mitigate the long-term stigma of their past through the impact of their past behaviour on future employment and social opportunities. Without effective, well-funded aftercare systems, the promise of a ‘Fresh Start’ for system-involved youth will remain a hollow phrase.
Conclusion:
The intersection of Art 21/ juvenile justice in India shows the ongoing evolution of legal compassion. Although the 2015 Law has stricter penalties for young people over 18 years who have committed serious crimes, the core constitutional principle remains unchanged: all children have a fundamental right to dignity and the State must protect this right. Only by addressing the systemic shortcomings that lead to the child being such a criminal will true justice under Art 21 occur, and every child has an inherent right to be treated as a human being. If India places the foundation of its juvenile justice system on an understanding of the dignity of all human beings, it will develop a legal system of hope and opportunity rather than one of despair and destruction, and develop a legal system that serves as a catalyst for restoration, rehabilitation or giving a second chance to every child.
[1]Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[2]Ibid arts 15, 39.
[3]Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3 (UNCRC).
[4]Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
[5]Nelson Mandela, Speech at the dedication of Qunu and Nqadu as SOS Children’s Villages (Pretoria, 27 September 1997).
[6]Subramanian Swamy v Raju (2014) 8 SCC 390.
[7]Barun Chandra Thakur v Master Bholu 2022 SCC OnLine SC 870.
Author Name- Ayushi Joshi, Designation: BA.LLB 5th year student from Kanoria School of law for Women, Jaipur.
