BETWEEN REHABILITATION AND RETRIBUTION: JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN TRYING JUVENILES AS ADULTS UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015 CHILD OR ADULT? A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TRYING JUVENILES AS ADULTS IN SEXUAL OFFENCE CASES: INDIA, USA AND UK

The question of whether a juvenile accused of a heinous offence should be tried as a child or as an adult sits at the uncomfortable intersection of penology, child psychology, and constitutional morality. In India, Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 introduced a paradigm shift by empowering the Juvenile Justice Board to transfer adolescents between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years, accused of heinous offences, to the Children’s Court for trial as adults. This paper critically examines the doctrinal, jurisprudential, and empirical dimensions of that provision, with particular focus on cases involving sexual offences, where the stakes of judicial discretion are highest. Drawing on comparative analysis of analogous frameworks in the United States and the United Kingdom, this paper argues that while the legislative intent behind Section 15 was to balance accountability with child welfare, its actual operation has been marked by inconsistency, inadequate procedural safeguards, and a troubling subordination of rehabilitative principles to punitive sentiment. The paper concludes by proposing doctrinal and legislative reforms calibrated to restore the primacy of the child’s best interest while ensuring that public safety concerns are addressed through evidence-based judicial reasoning.