Remember being 16? For many of us, it was a blur of exams, friendships, and figuring ourselves out. But what happens when someone that age commits a serious crime? This tough question is exactly what the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill of 2015 set out to address.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015

A New Chapter for Juvenile Justice: When Does a Child Become an Adult in the Eyes of the Law?

When the Rajya Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015, it signalled a huge shift in India’s approach to crime committed by young offenders.

For the first time, our lawmakers clearly recognised that victims deserve justice just as much as juveniles deserve protection.

This change became essential because:

• 1.2% of India’s most serious crimes are committed by juveniles

• Over 50% of these are sexual offences

Those numbers are enough to make anyone pause—even someone who usually skips statistics like they skip gym on Mondays.              

Why This Amendment Was Needed

Under the amended law, the Juvenile Justice Board now has the discretion to try juveniles aged 16–18 as adults for heinous crimes.

But don’t worry—it’s not automatic.

Before taking such a step, the Board must evaluate:

• the juvenile’s mental maturity

• their physical ability

• whether they understood the consequences

• and the circumstances behind the act

Only if the child is found mature enough to grasp the seriousness of the act will the case shift to adult court.

(Think of it as checking whether someone is truly behaving like a child or only pretending to be one when convenient!)

 

The Heart of the New Bill: The 16-18 Age Group

Previously, the law saw everyone under 18 uniformly as a child. The new bill introduces a crucial distinction. For "heinous offences" (think serious crimes like murder or rape), the Juvenile Justice Board now has the discretion to try a 16-18 year old as an adult.

 

But—and this is a very important ‘but’—this isn’t automatic. The Board must conduct a preliminary assessment. They have to answer questions like:

 

Was the juvenile mentally and physically capable of committing such a crime?

 

Did they understand the consequences of their actions?

 

What were the circumstances of the offence?

 

Only if the Board is convinced, can the trial proceed in a regular court. It’s less about age, and more about capacity and intent.

 

Not All Black and White: The Crucial "Safety Valve"

Now, before you picture every rebellious teenager being sent to adult jail, let’s be clear. The law has a built-in safety valve.

 

The system is designed to act as a deterrent for serious crimes, not to punish petty mischief or youthful folly. For less serious offences or crimes committed by younger children, the focus remains firmly on rehabilitation, not retribution. The idea is to guide, correct, and reform young minds who have gone astray, giving them a real chance to turn their lives around with societal support.

The Real Question: Why Are Juvenile Crimes Increasing?

This is where India needs a serious national conversation.

Juvenile crime is often a reflection of:

• family problems

• lack of moral guidance

• peer pressure

• poverty

• emotional neglect

• social frustrations

We need child psychologists, sociologists, educators, and families to come together and address the root causes, not just the symptoms.

If society is a mirror, the rise in juvenile crime is a crack we must repair before it spreads.

What Should Our Ultimate Goal Be?

A strong nation is built by strong values—and those values start with children.

Our long-term focus must be on:

• Safety

• Protection

• Education

• Emotional support

• Rehabilitation for the misguided

• A caring environment for every child

The aim shouldn’t be just to punish wrongdoing. It should be to prevent it, guide children, and give them hope.

Final Thought: A Bill That Looks at Justice and Humanity Together

The Juvenile Justice Bill, 2015 is not just a legal reform—it’s a reminder that India believes in both justice and second chances.

 

If implemented with sensitivity and responsibility, this law can become a turning point—a moment in history when India decided to protect its children, its victims, and its future with equal commitment.

 

And who knows? Maybe years later, we’ll look back and say,

“This is where a safer, more compassionate India truly began.”

Image Courtesy: Google

Intolerance Reloaded

                         

India’s Intolerance Debate: More Noise Than Reality

Ratan Tata once said that intolerance in India mostly exists in TV studios—and honestly, that might be the most accurate summary ever. The so-called “intolerance debate” appeared loudly during elections and disappeared just as fast after the results. It was as if someone simply switched off the drama lights.

For months, news channels and activists created a dramatic picture of India becoming unsafe. Award ceremonies turned into award-returning ceremonies, and every debate panel looked like a wrestling ring of “experts.” But investigations later showed that many of the highlighted incidents happened in non-BJP states, and some were not connected to communal hate at all. Still, the Modi government took the blame.

A Familiar Pattern During Elections

Whether it was the Delhi or Bihar elections, similar protests popped up with perfect timing. Certain groups projected an image of a fearful, insecure India to influence voters. The goal seemed clear: portray the Modi government as intolerant, create panic among minorities, and shape electoral outcomes.

This strategy wasn’t new, but it became louder thanks to TV debates, social media, and what many call paid media.

Selective Outrage: A National Habit

One of the biggest issues is selective outrage.
Many self-proclaimed secular voices are quick to criticise Hindu groups but fall strangely silent when crimes involve members of other communities.

Examples that didn’t receive much outrage:

• Kashmiri Hindu exodus

• Sikh massacre

• Attack on Lokmat newspaper

• Bounties announced by fundamentalist organisations

But a stray incident often misreported, gets labelled as “growing intolerance.”
This double standard widens divides and strengthens fringe elements.

A Narrative Built Over Decades

For years, left-leaning intellectual groups shaped a narrative where:

• Hindus were often portrayed as aggressors

• Other communities were seen only as victims

• Anything indigenous was mocked

• Yoga was called “communal,”

• Swachh Bharat was “nautanki,”

• And even Selfie with Daughter was criticised

These same voices defended controversial artworks but supported banning books when it suited them. Their intolerance debate was less about society and more about politics and perception.

A Campaign Against the Government

The rise of a strong central leadership, stricter rules for NGOs, and reduced corruption meant the old power circles felt threatened. The intolerance narrative became a convenient tool to regain relevance and attack the Modi government.

India a country with more religions than most continents being called intolerant? That’s almost comedy.

Media, Celebrities and the Perception Battle

Since day one, the Modi government has struggled against negative perception created by certain media houses. Even celebrities got carried away, Aamir Khan’s statements being a classic example adding fuel to an already exaggerated fire.

Ironically, during the same period, the Chennai floods received far less coverage than the “intolerance crisis.”

As someone joked:

Earlier, journalists risked their lives for a story. Now, stories risk their truth for journalists.

A Stronger India Beyond the Noise

India is, and always has been, a diverse and resilient nation. Crimes must be punished, peace must be protected, and every community must feel safe. But turning stray incidents into “proof” of a collapsing nation helps no one.

The Prime Minister said it best:

A land of Gandhi and Buddha has no place for intolerance.

And perhaps the biggest irony is this—those shouting loudest about intolerance often cannot tolerate an opposite opinion.

Image Courtesy: Google