ACKNOWLEDGMENT

On completion of this project, it is my present privilege to acknowledge my profound

gratitude and indebtedness towards many people for their valuable suggestion and
constructive criticism. There precious guidance and unrelenting support kept me on the
right track throughout the project I gratefully acknowledge my deepest sense of gratitude
to:
Our Asst. Prof. Of Law of crime I Vaibhav Shrivastav sir, who provided me this
wonderful opportunity and guided me throughout the project work.
I would also like to thank my batch mates and seniors for their constant help and guidance
which helped me in completing this project.
I am also thankful to the library and computer staffs of the university for helping us find
and select books from the university library.
Finally, I’m thankful to my family members and friends for the affection and
encouragement with which doing this project became pleasure

1
TABLE OF CONTENT

• Introduction

• Historical Background of Juvenile Justice in India

• Concept of Juvenile Delinquency

• Treatment of Juveniles under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

• Evolution and Purpose of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

• Comparative Analysis: IPC vs. BNS on Juvenile Offenders

• 6.1 Age of Criminal Responsibility

• 6.2 Heinous Offences and Trial as Adults

• 6.3 Sentencing and Rehabilitation

• Role of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

• Judicial Pronouncements and Interpretation

• Impact of Reforms on Juvenile Justice System

• Challenges and Recommendations

• Conclusion

2
ABSTRACT
The evolution of India’s criminal justice system has taken a significant turn with the
replacement of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023, as part of a broader legal overhaul. This transformation seeks to decolonize
and modernize criminal law in India. Within this context, the treatment of juvenile
offenders emerges as a critical area of study, as it reflects the nation’s approach toward
child rights, rehabilitation, and justice. Historically, the IPC provided a limited framework
for dealing with juvenile delinquency, relying primarily on age-based exemptions under
Sections 82 and 83, without offering a specialized mechanism for juvenile reform.

The introduction of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015,
however, marked a paradigm shift by providing a dedicated legal framework focusing on
reformation and reintegration of children in conflict with the law. It introduced
categorization of offences, allowed trial of juveniles aged 16–18 as adults in heinous
offences under certain conditions, and mandated the establishment of Juvenile Justice
Boards for preliminary assessments.

This research paper aims to conduct a comparative analysis between the IPC and the BNS
with respect to their treatment of juvenile offenders, exploring how the substantive
provisions have changed or remained consistent. The study also examines the alignment
of BNS with the JJ Act, and whether the reforms under the new code sufficiently address
the unique needs and vulnerabilities of juveniles. It delves into issues such as the age of
criminal responsibility, procedural safeguards, sentencing approaches, and the scope for
rehabilitation.

Through an examination of statutory provisions, judicial pronouncements, and empirical

data, the paper argues that while the BNS retains many of the IPC’s principles concerning
juveniles, it reinforces the role of the JJ Act as the primary law governing juvenile justice.
The findings suggest that while legislative reforms are commendable, practical challenges

3
such as lack of infrastructure, inconsistent application of the law, and inadequate
assessment mechanisms continue to hinder effective juvenile justice delivery.

Ultimately, this paper highlights the importance of a child-centric and restorative

approach in addressing juvenile offences, urging for stronger integration between general
criminal law and specialized juvenile statutes. The success of juvenile justice reforms
depends not only on legislative changes but also on their implementation, institutional
capacity, and the collective commitment to uphold the rehabilitative spirit of juvenile law.

4
Introduction
The concept of juvenile justice is rooted in the belief that children, due to their age,
immaturity, and evolving capacity for understanding consequences, deserve a legal
framework focused more on reform, rehabilitation, and reintegration than on retribution or
punitive measures. The premise is that juveniles, unlike adults, are still in a critical stage
of psychological and emotional development and can be steered away from a path of
criminal behavior with appropriate interventions and supportive legal processes.

In India, juvenile justice has traditionally been governed by a dual framework: the general
criminal law (primarily the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and the special law, namely the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The IPC laid down the basic
age thresholds for criminal responsibility, offering limited exemptions based on the
presumed mental incapacity of children below certain ages. However, it lacked a
comprehensive or child-sensitive mechanism to deal with juveniles who came into
conflict with the law.

With the recent introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, as part of
India’s broader effort to overhaul colonial-era criminal laws, there is a renewed focus on
creating a justice system that reflects contemporary social values and constitutional
morality. The BNS, while largely retaining the structure of the IPC with regard to juvenile
culpability, signifies a shift toward streamlining and modernizing criminal procedures. It
must now be examined how these changes affect the treatment of juveniles, especially
when read in conjunction with the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015.

This paper seeks to analyze and compare the approach of the IPC and the BNS in
addressing juvenile offenders, considering how far the new code reflects progressive
thought in criminal jurisprudence. It also explores whether the reforms under BNS
adequately harmonize with the protective intent of the JJ Act and international
conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Through this comparative analysis, the paper aims to evaluate whether the BNS marks a

5
Historical Background of Juvenile Justice in India

The development of juvenile justice in India is a reflection of the country’s evolving

socio-legal approach towards children in conflict with the law. The system has shifted
over time from a punitive model rooted in colonial jurisprudence to a more reformative
and rehabilitative framework, aligned with constitutional values and international human
rights standards.

The origins of juvenile justice in India can be traced back to colonial legislation such as
the Apprentices Act, 1850, which was primarily concerned with placing convicted
children in vocational training programs rather than regular prisons. This law marked the
beginning of differential treatment for juvenile offenders. Later, the Reformatory Schools
Act, 1897 allowed for the establishment of reformatories where juveniles could be housed
separately from adult criminals. These early laws, however, were limited in scope and
were largely applicable only to boys under a certain age, ignoring a broader understanding
of child rights and welfare.

After independence, recognizing the limitations and inconsistencies of colonial laws, the
Indian government passed the Children Act of 1960. Although progressive in its intent, it
was enforced differently in different states, leading to a lack of uniformity in juvenile
justice administration across the country. The need for a national law became apparent,
culminating in the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which for the first time
provided a unified legal framework for the care, protection, treatment, and rehabilitation
of juveniles.

This Act was eventually repealed and replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to bring Indian law in conformity with the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), ratified by India in 1992. The
2000 Act incorporated child-friendly procedures and emphasized rehabilitation over
punishment.

6
Following widespread public debate after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case—in which one of
the accused was a juvenile—the law was once again revised, resulting in the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015. This Act introduced a controversial provision allowing juveniles aged
16–18 years to be tried as adults in cases involving heinous offences, subject to a
preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board. It also strengthened mechanisms
for adoption and established clearer procedures for children in need of care and
protection.

These legislative milestones demonstrate a continuing effort by the Indian state to balance
child protection with public safety, while progressively aligning with global standards and
responding to societal demands for justice and accountability.

7
Concept of Juvenile Delinquency

Juvenile delinquency refers to illegal, antisocial, or deviant behavior committed by

individuals who are legally considered minors. In most legal systems, including India’s, a
“juvenile” or “child in conflict with law” is defined as a person who is below the age of
18 years. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, defines a child
as any person who has not completed eighteen years of age and categorizes juveniles in
conflict with law separately from children in need of care and protection.

Delinquent behavior among juveniles may range from minor infractions such as truancy,
vandalism, or substance abuse to more serious crimes like theft, assault, or even murder.
The causes of juvenile delinquency are multifaceted and include socio-economic factors
such as poverty, broken families, lack of education, peer pressure, exposure to violence,
abuse, and inadequate parental supervision. Psychological issues, substance dependency,
and exposure to criminal environments also significantly contribute to such behavior.

The key distinction between juvenile delinquency and adult criminality lies in the intent
and capacity of the offender. Juveniles are presumed to lack the maturity and full
understanding of the consequences of their actions. As a result, modern juvenile justice
systems, including India's, operate on the principle of parens patriae—the idea that the
state has a responsibility to act as a guardian for minors, prioritizing their welfare and
rehabilitation over punitive action.

8
Historically, juvenile offenders were treated similarly to adults and subjected to the same
harsh punishments. However, over time, there has been a global shift toward recognizing
the need for a separate justice system for minors. In India, this recognition is reflected in
the Juvenile Justice Act and the establishment of institutions such as Juvenile Justice
Boards, Child Welfare Committees, Observation Homes, and Special Homes to ensure
child-friendly adjudication and correction.

The JJ Act, 2015, further distinguishes between petty, serious, and heinous offences
committed by juveniles. Notably, it allows for juveniles between 16 and 18 years to be
tried as adults for heinous crimes, subject to a preliminary assessment of the child’s
mental and physical capacity, understanding of consequences, and circumstances of the
offence. This provision reflects a nuanced approach that seeks to balance the goals of
justice and rehabilitation.

In conclusion, juvenile delinquency is not merely a legal issue but a complex socio-
psychological phenomenon that requires a multi-pronged response involving legal reform,
social support, educational opportunities, and psychological intervention.

9
Treatment of Juveniles under the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
1860

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, formulated during the British colonial period, did not
specifically define the term “juvenile,” but it did address the issue of children in conflict
with the law in a limited manner. The provisions relevant to juvenile offenders are found
primarily in Sections 82 and 83, which deal with the age of criminal responsibility and the
mental capacity of minors to commit crimes.

Section 82: Exemption for Children Under 7 Years of Age Section 82 of the
IPC provides that any child below the age of 7 years is completely exempt from criminal
liability. This provision reflects the belief that children at this age lack the mental capacity
to form the intent required for criminal responsibility. It is based on the assumption that
children under seven do not possess the cognitive ability to understand the nature or
consequences of their actions. Consequently, such a child cannot be held criminally
responsible for any act, regardless of its nature. This provision laid the foundation for the
legal principle of doli incapax—the inability to commit a crime due to lack of mental
capacity.

10
However, while Section 82 broadly exempts children from criminal liability, it does not
offer any guidance on how such children should be treated or rehabilitated, a gap that was
later addressed by juvenile-specific laws such as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 83: Exemption for Children Between 7 and 12 Years of Age

Section 83 of the IPC further refines the exemption by applying to children between the
ages of 7 and 12. While children in this age group are not automatically exempt from
criminal liability, they are presumed to be incapable of committing a crime unless they
have attained sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of their
conduct. This clause introduces a subjective element, relying on the discretion of the court
or adjudicating authority to assess whether a child in this age group possesses the
necessary mental maturity to comprehend the gravity of their actions.

This provision thus leaves a significant amount of discretion in the hands of the judiciary,
allowing for case-by-case determinations. Courts were tasked with considering factors
like the child’s upbringing, psychological development, intellectual capabilities, and the
specific circumstances of the offence. However, this reliance on judicial discretion led to
inconsistencies in the application of the law, with different courts interpreting a child’s
mental maturity in varied ways. This lack of clarity prompted the eventual development of
a more detailed and systematic framework for juvenile justice, culminating in the Juvenile
Justice Act, 1986, and later revisions.

11
Limitations of IPC Provisions The provisions under Sections 82 and 83, while
foundational, reflect a relatively rudimentary understanding of juvenile psychology. They
were based on a binary age-determined system rather than a more nuanced approach that
considers individual psychological, emotional, and social development. The reliance on
judicial discretion also meant that the decisions regarding a juvenile’s criminal liability
were influenced by the judge's subjective views, potentially leading to inconsistent
outcomes. Furthermore, there were no provisions in the IPC for the rehabilitation or
reformation of minors involved in criminal conduct, which is a critical aspect of modern
juvenile justice systems.

Evolution and Purpose of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),

2023

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 represents one of the most significant
overhauls of India’s criminal justice system since independence. Enacted as part of a
broader initiative to decolonize and modernize the Indian legal framework, the BNS
replaces the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which had governed substantive criminal law
in India for over 160 years. Alongside the BNS, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 were also introduced to
replace the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
respectively.

12
The BNS was conceived with the aim of creating a justice system that is more efficient,
accessible, and responsive to the needs of victims, as well as being better aligned with the
Indian Constitution and current societal values. It aims to remove archaic provisions
rooted in colonial rule and introduce laws that reflect the evolving norms, priorities, and
challenges of contemporary Indian society. One of the core goals of the BNS is to ensure
speedy justice, particularly for victims of crimes, by simplifying legal procedures,
increasing the use of technology in criminal investigations and trials, and reducing case
pendency.

Although the BNS does not create an entirely new structure for juvenile offenders—since
juveniles are primarily governed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015—its provisions do have important implications for how juveniles are
assessed and tried, particularly in the case of heinous offences. For instance, under the JJ
Act, a juvenile aged 16–18 can be tried as an adult for heinous offences, and since the
BNS introduces new categories and definitions for serious crimes (e.g., expanded
definitions of terrorism, sexual offences, mob lynching), it indirectly affects the
categorization of crimes that juveniles may be involved in.

Moreover, the BNS introduces a more victim-centric approach, emphasizing restitution,

community service, and restorative justice measures, which could influence sentencing
and rehabilitation decisions even in juvenile cases. It also reflects a streamlining of
procedural mechanisms that, if coordinated effectively with juvenile justice boards, can
improve the adjudication and treatment of juveniles in conflict with the law.

Thus, while the BNS does not alter the core provisions concerning juveniles directly, it
lays the groundwork for a more integrated, reformed, and efficient legal ecosystem in
which the juvenile justice system must operate. The real test of these reforms will lie in
how well the BNS and JJ Act can harmonize to provide both justice and rehabilitation in
cases involving juvenile offenders.

13
Comparative Analysis: IPC vs. BNS on Juvenile Offenders

Age of Criminal Responsibility One of the foundational aspects of juvenile justice

is determining the age of criminal responsibility, i.e., the age at which a child is
considered capable of committing a crime and being held legally accountable for it. Both
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023,
address this issue, largely preserving the same structure but with updated legislative
language.

Under the IPC:

Section 82 of the IPC provided that a child under the age of 7 years is absolutely exempt
from criminal liability, based on the presumption that such a child lacks the necessary
mental maturity (mens rea) to understand the nature and consequences of a criminal act.
This is a reflection of the principle of doli incapax (incapable of crime).

Section 83 dealt with children between the ages of 7 and 12 years, stating that such a child
may be held criminally liable only if it can be proved that they had attained sufficient
maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of their conduct at the
time of the offence. This provision granted a degree of discretion to the courts to assess
the child's mental capacity on a case-by-case basis.

Under the BNS:

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, retains these provisions almost verbatim in Clause
39. It states:

A child under the age of 7 years shall not be held criminally responsible.

A child aged between 7 and 12 years may be held liable only if it is shown that the child
had sufficient maturity to understand the implications of their act.

While the wording and structure remain largely unchanged, the inclusion of these
provisions in the BNS signifies the continuation of a long-standing legal presumption

14
About the cognitive development of children. However, modern critiques of these age-
based categories argue that they are not always scientifically consistent with
contemporary understandings of child psychology and brain development, which suggest
that cognitive maturity varies significantly between individuals.

In both the IPC and BNS, children above the age of 12 are presumed to be capable of
criminal intent unless otherwise protected under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which
treats all persons under 18 as juveniles. However, in cases involving heinous offences by
juveniles aged 16–18, the JJ Act allows for the possibility of adult trial based on an
assessment—thus introducing a layered approach to criminal responsibility beyond the
binary categorization in IPC and BNS.

This comparison shows that while the statutory age thresholds for criminal responsibility
remain static, the broader context of how juvenile offenders are treated has evolved
through parallel juvenile justice laws rather than through fundamental reform in the core
penal code itself.

15
 Role of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (commonly referred to
as the JJ Act) is the cornerstone legislation in India for dealing with children in conflict
with law, as well as children in need of care and protection. It was enacted to align
domestic juvenile justice provisions with international standards, especially the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which India is a signatory.

The JJ Act, 2015, replaced the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 in response to growing public
concern and legal debate following the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, in which one of the
accused was a minor. The new Act introduced a more nuanced, tiered approach to juvenile
offences while still maintaining the core principle of rehabilitation over punishment.

A key feature of the Act is its categorization of offences committed by juveniles into three
distinct types:

Petty Offences – Offences for which the maximum punishment under the law is
imprisonment of up to three years.

16
Serious Offences – Offences for which the punishment is imprisonment between three
and seven years.

Heinous Offences – Offences for which the punishment under the Indian Penal Code or
any other law is imprisonment for seven years or more.

This classification helps determine the procedure to be followed and the level of scrutiny
required in each case. For petty and serious offences, juveniles are dealt with by the
Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in a child-friendly manner focused on reformative measures.
However, in cases of heinous offences, a juvenile between 16 and 18 years of age may be
tried as an adult only after a preliminary assessment by the JJB.

The preliminary assessment considers:

The child’s physical and mental capacity to commit the offence,

The ability to understand the consequences of the offence,

The circumstances in which the offence was committed.

If the Board is satisfied that the child possesses the requisite mental maturity, the case is
transferred to a Children’s Court, where the juvenile may be tried as an adult. However,
even in such cases, the trial must still ensure child-sensitive procedures.

The Act also provides for the establishment of Child Welfare Committees (CWCs),
Observation Homes, Special Homes, and Fit Facilities to ensure the holistic development
and reintegration of juveniles. It emphasizes rehabilitation, education, skill development,
and psychological support, with a preference for placing children in institutional care only
as a last resort.

17
In essence, the JJ Act, 2015 reflects an effort to strike a balance between rehabilitative
justice for juveniles and societal concerns about accountability and deterrence, especially
in the context of serious offences. It works in tandem with the substantive criminal law—
whether the IPC or the BNS—by providing a procedural and rehabilitative framework that
is specifically tailored for minors.

Judicial Pronouncements and Interpretation

Judicial interpretations have played a vital role in shaping the trajectory of juvenile justice
in India. Through landmark decisions, the Supreme Court has not only upheld the
constitutionality of juvenile-specific legislation but also underscored the importance of
balancing child rights, justice, and societal protection. The following rulings have had a
significant influence on the development and reform of juvenile laws in the country:

1. Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013)

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to examine the constitutionality of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, particularly the age bar of 18
years for being considered a juvenile. The petitioner argued for a lower age of criminal
responsibility, citing rising juvenile involvement in serious crimes.
However, the Court upheld the existing age criterion, ruling that the age of 18 was
consistent with India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC), which defines a child as anyone below 18. The Court emphasized the
importance of reformation and rehabilitation over retributive justice in the case of
juveniles. This judgment reaffirmed the principle that children in conflict with the law
must be treated differently from adults.

18
2. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju & Ors. (2014) This case further clarified
the treatment of juveniles under the JJ Act. The petition challenged the release of a
juvenile involved in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case (Nirbhaya case), contending that
juveniles accused of heinous crimes should not be entitled to the protection of the JJ Act.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the law, as it stood at the time of the offence,
must apply—meaning that the juvenile could not be tried as an adult or punished under
the IPC. The Court reiterated that even in cases involving grave offences, juveniles were
entitled to differentiated treatment, and their cases must be handled strictly under the JJ
Act, 2000. This ruling reemphasized the non-retroactive nature of criminal laws and the
necessity of a protective framework for minors.

3. Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) – Nirbhaya Case

Although the main judgment dealt with the adult offenders in the 2012 gang rape case,
this case served as a catalyst for major reforms in juvenile law. One of the co-accused was
a juvenile, who, despite being considered the most brutal among the perpetrators, was
released after three years in a reform home, as mandated by the JJ Act, 2000. This sparked
nationwide outrage and debate over the adequacy of the juvenile justice framework in
dealing with heinous offences committed by older adolescents. The public discourse that
followed led to the passage of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, which introduced the provision allowing juveniles aged 16 to 18 to be tried as
adults in cases of heinous crimes, subject to a preliminary assessment.

These judicial pronouncements collectively reflect the delicate balance that the judiciary
seeks to maintain between protecting the rights of children and addressing the legitimate
demands for justice in serious criminal cases. The courts have consistently upheld
international human rights obligations, while also recognizing the need for a more
robust and flexible legal response to evolving societal realities.

19
Impact of Reforms on Juvenile Justice System

The introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 marks a critical moment in
the evolution of India’s criminal justice system, aiming to modernize outdated laws and
prioritize a victim-centric approach. However, when it comes to juvenile offenders, the
BNS does not introduce substantial changes in terms of legal definitions, age thresholds,
or procedures for handling children in conflict with law. Instead, it reflects a broader
philosophy of legal coherence, wherein general criminal law is aligned with the
specialized framework provided under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

This harmonization ensures that juvenile justice remains primarily rehabilitative, rather
than punitive. By preserving key principles from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as the
age of criminal responsibility (under Clause 39 of the BNS), the BNS defers substantive
intervention in juvenile cases to the JJ Act, which continues to be the central legislation
governing the treatment, rights, and rehabilitation of juveniles.

Despite this structural continuity, the BNS has indirect implications for juveniles—
particularly in the way it reclassifies certain offences, introduces harsher punishments for
crimes like terrorism, mob lynching, and sexual violence, and encourages streamlined,
time-bound trials. These changes could affect juveniles aged 16–18 who are accused of
heinous offences, as defined under the JJ Act, and may be subject to adult trial following
the JJB’s preliminary assessment. The presence of expanded or redefined serious crimes
in the BNS may lead to a larger number of juveniles falling within the “heinous offence”
category, thus increasing the number of assessments for adult trials.

20
Another notable impact is the emphasis on victim rights and justice delivery timelines.
These aspects may create a subtle pressure on the system to prioritize public demand for
justice over a nuanced evaluation of the juvenile’s psychological maturity and potential
for reform. This raises valid concerns about whether the evolving justice system is
gradually shifting towards retribution at the cost of rehabilitation, especially in high-
profile or emotionally charged cases.

Furthermore, implementation challenges remain. Although laws like the JJ Act provide a
progressive framework, issues such as the lack of trained personnel, inadequate
infrastructure in Observation Homes, and inconsistent application of preliminary
assessments across states continue to hinder the effective functioning of the juvenile
justice system.

In conclusion, while the BNS maintains a complementary stance toward the JJ Act and
avoids direct interference with juvenile-specific provisions, it subtly reshapes the context
in which juveniles are assessed and tried. The challenge lies in ensuring that child-centric
principles are not diluted in the face of stronger state and societal impulses for stricter
punitive responses. The reforms must therefore be accompanied by institutional capacity
building, judicial sensitivity, and continuous oversight to uphold the core objectives of
juvenile justice: rehabilitation, reintegration, and the best interests of the child.

21
Challenges and Recommendations

The evolving juvenile justice system in India, particularly in the context of the transition
from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, presents
both opportunities and persistent challenges. While the legal intent remains centered
around child protection and rehabilitation, practical and systemic gaps continue to affect
its implementation.

Challenges:

Overlap and Confusion Between General and Special Laws:

The BNS, though largely deferential to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, does not clearly delineate its boundaries with the JJ Act in all
contexts. This can result in confusion among law enforcement agencies, judicial officers,
and legal practitioners when handling juvenile cases, especially in heinous offences where
both laws may be invoked.

Judicial Discretion and Risk of Bias in Mental Maturity Assessment:

The preliminary assessment process under the JJ Act for juveniles aged 16–18 accused of
heinous crimes leaves significant discretion in the hands of the Juvenile Justice Board
(JJB). There is a risk of subjective or inconsistent determinations of a juvenile’s mental
and emotional maturity, which could lead to either unduly harsh or excessively lenient
treatment. In high-profile cases, public sentiment or media pressure may influence such
assessments, jeopardizing the principle of child-sensitive justice.

22
Conclusion

The transition from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023 represents a monumental shift in India’s criminal justice landscape, aiming
to modernize legal language, prioritize victim-centric justice, and streamline judicial
processes. However, when it comes to the treatment of juvenile offenders, the reforms
introduced by the BNS have deliberately preserved the special status accorded to children
in conflict with law, deferring substantially to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.

While this continuity signals the legislature’s intent to maintain a rehabilitative and child-
centric approach, it also places immense responsibility on the institutions enforcing
juvenile justice. The core principles of the JJ Act—rehabilitation, reintegration, and
individualized assessment—remain central to juvenile justice, irrespective of the broader
criminal law reforms. The age of criminal responsibility, preliminary assessment
mechanism for heinous offences, and categorization of crimes under the JJ Act continue to
define the procedural and substantive framework for dealing with juveniles.

Nevertheless, challenges such as institutional inadequacy, uneven implementation, judicial

subjectivity, and public pressure for harsher penalties persist and threaten the core
philosophy of child reform. The classification of more offences as “heinous” under the
BNS, combined with societal expectations for stricter justice, could inadvertently result in
a shift towards a more punitive approach, particularly for older adolescents.

23
To preserve the integrity of juvenile justice reforms, it is critical that legal clarity is
complemented by effective training of judicial personnel, strengthened infrastructure, and
increased investment in rehabilitative mechanisms. There is also a pressing need to
institutionalize psychological assessments and promote restorative justice models that
focus not only on accountability but also on healing and reintegration.

In conclusion, the legislative intent behind both the BNS and the JJ Act must be realized
not just through statutory language, but through compassionate, informed, and consistent
application. Only then can the juvenile justice system truly serve its purpose—to reform,
not merely punish; to guide, not simply judge; and to offer young offenders a second
chance at becoming productive members of society

24