Answer: The case study pertains to the correctness of the provision of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which gives the Juvenile Justice Board the power to assess whether the perpetrator of a heinous crime aged between 16 and 18, had acted as a ‘child’ or as an ‘adult.’ The board will be assisted in this process by psychologists and social experts.
(a) Possible factors that can drive a child towards committing heinous crimes are following:

• Social: Social factors are undergoing changes due to urbanization, globalization and cultural changes.
  • Family: Broken homes, father’s work habits, cohesiveness of the family, relations between parents, affection of siblings, standards of home, parent’s discipline and affection etc. play a very important role in defining the behaviour of a child.
  • School and peer group relations: After family, the child spends most of its time in the school and with his friends. It can supplement the role of the family in enhancing values.
• Economic factors: In case of India, socio-economic injustice combined with violence and abuse is the major factor in breeding juvenile delinquency. Persistent unemployment and low incomes of families increases the likelihood of children’s involvement in any kind of criminal activities and unethical behaviour.
• Bad cultural influences: Cinema and Television have emerged as strong attractions for children in recent times. Sometimes, their content glorifies anti-social behaviour as heroic and exposes children to all kinds of criminal acts. Children, having an impressionable mind, are ill-equipped to differentiate what is good from bad.
• Individual factors: It includes certain personality traits like feeling of insecurity, fear, lack of self-control, emotional conflict etc.

(b) The debate on whether a child in conflict with law (CCL) should be treated as an adult often remains a contentious issue with both sides having some strong arguments. A CCL should be tried as an adult, because:

• Even though they are treated as juveniles because of their age, they have increasingly been found to be involved in heinous crimes in recent years. For examples, Nirbhaya rape case, Lucknow PubG murder etc.
• It is arbitrary that a person aged 17 years and 364 days will be tried as a juvenile while an 18 year old will be tried as an adult for the same crime.
• It provides a measure of consistency for the severity of the crime and also gives due seriousness to the severity that they deserve.
• It gives a sense of justice to the victims whose fundamental and legal rights have been violated.

Notwithstanding the above arguments, a CCL should not be tried as an adult, because:

• No one is born a criminal. Research has proved that the conditions are provided by the environment in which children are reared that dispose them towards antisocial behaviour.
• It is the duty of the state and society to provide equal opportunities for development of all children during the period of their growth, which would reduce inequality and ensure social justice.
  • Their failure to do so leads to conditions that are associated with juvenile crimes, such as: poverty; drug abuse; anti-social peer group; easy availability of firearms; abusive parents; single-parent child; child sexual abuse; lack of education opportunities etc.
• There are issues in deciding the age at which a person becomes an adult. Boundary between juvenile and adult is no longer as clear, as children appear to grow up faster, with more exposure to adult ideas.
• In law, the concept of ‘guilty mind’ holds an important place where a person should be mentally capable and willing to cause the effect of an illegal act to be blamed for that criminal activity. As children do not understand the gravity of the crime they have committed, it is not right to punish them for those crimes.

Thus, it is not just a problem whose onus can be put on children but reflects the malaise and corruption in the society and systemic limitations of the state. Hence, punishing children stands on a slippery ground ethically. It is important that the focus should be shifted from punitive justice to reformative justice. Moreover, socio-economic justice as promised by the Constitution should be pursued earnestly; else we will only address the symptoms but not the causes.