The unconstitutional amendment of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 begins its contradictions from the initial provisions itself. The section 2(12) of the main Act states that a juvenile means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years and on the other side this amended version contradicts its own law as it states that children from 16-18 years of age can be tried as adult criminals. It also reflects how arbitrary it is on testified along with the tests under Art. 14.

The test of Intelligible differentia, another test under Art. 14, is found unreasonable too due to the logic and the reasons behind the Act. Firstly, it replaces the word juvenile with child in conflict with law which was supposedly more humane. But this very child in conflict with law is meant to be tried for adult offences and this inhumane idea is conceived by the Government. Furthermore, the terms child alleged to be in conflict with law and child found to be in conflict with the law are not defined clearly and are used interchangeably in the Act. It stands as a great flaw due to the general understanding of the evident difference between alleged to be and found to be.

In the second test, the nexus between the classification and the object is absent as the authorities have acted without following the procedure to unequal treatment. The object or the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act is to provide care, protection and child friendly approach but the approach suddenly disappears towards the child between the ages of 16-18 years. The objective of Juvenile Justice Act is not being fulfilled as Juveniles are being treated as adult criminals and sent to the prison where they would be influenced to be more hardened criminals since the purpose of the Act is to protect the juvenile from committing further crimes and evidently not fulfilled with the amendment. Instead the government through this specific provision is giving a hand in converting the juveniles into hardened criminals unlikely of the main idea which stands to reform the juveniles so that they could be accepted into the society.

There is also a violation of fundamental right under Art. 21 as the rights of opportunity to be heard and right of fair trial are infringed. The right of the juvenile to be tried infront of the Children’s Court gets him infront of the Session court with the other hardened criminals and consequently, the degree of punishment is harsher.

Section 15 of the Act seeks to repeal and replace the existing Juvenile Justice Act, 2002 with a draconian and unconstitutional amendment which instead of providing care and protection to the children deems them as an adult in cases where the alleged commission of crime by them is heinous in nature. It seeks to punish the child in conflict with the law for the failure of the society at large in providing the child with adequate care and protection. Juveniles in conflict with the law are more capable of change given the fact that their brains are still learning. Honest efforts made towards rehabilitation — including visits by a mental health professional three-four times a month — will have a significant positive impact on them. Unfortunately, there is no psychiatric screening in Indian prisons. No mental health professional would meet the juvenile convicted in any case and would lead to its worser development, totally against the objective of the Act. Every child develops in different background factors and considering to bring most of them into a similar set would be unethical since their mental faculty would not be equal.

The provision does not necessarily decide on the child in respect to his psychological or social factors but only governs on his mental faculty while committing the crime. It is totally undermined by the government that the mental faculty actually develops through these factors. More often than not the children who are put into rehabilitation centres come through as a changed human being. Under the existing law of a child in conflict with law between the age of 16-18 years who were found to have committed an offence by Juvenile Justice Board, there was an arrangement of rehabilitation supposition that could be passed by the Board. This rehabilitation disposition includes admonition community service, imposition of fine, probation group counselling and an extreme measure of deprivation of liberty by way of placement of the child in the special home for three years. The same facilities however could take a drastic turn in for cases when they are handed over the sessions court.

There are many further circumstances under the Indian law a person under the age is not allowed to vote, is considered minor for entering into a contract, a girl of age less than eighteen years cannot give consent for sexual relationships, a child of age less than eighteen years cannot marry. Yet by the amended Act that child can be tried as an adult after a preliminary assessment, the child shall be presumed to have the knowledge and understanding of the alleged crime that he has committed. Such a scenario would be travesty of justice. The idea behind treating a certain age group as children is to protect the most vulnerable section of the society where the government would have analysed in such matters that they are not mature enough to deal with these things. It is unjust and against the well-established principle lex iniusta non est lex that states that unjust law is not a law.

 Section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is hence against natural conscience, unjustified and unconstitutional to which we hope, no child falls as prey.