Written by Mansi Varshney,
Lex Lumen Research Journal Summer Intern,
June 2026
Introduction
The Indian juvenile justice system acknowledges that minors are quite different from adults for their psychological and emotional development. If we take neuroscience as a reference, it shows that children in the age group of 16 to 18 generally have incomplete impulse control and their judgment is not fully mature. But, the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 allows the prosecution of children who are charged with very serious crimes to be done in the adult court after a preliminary examination of the child has been made. As a result, there is quite a big gap between the scientific view of teenage behavior and the law’s way of determining one’s criminal responsibility. This chapter will look into this issue through the lens of neurological.
Legal Framework: The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and Section 15
The JJ Act of 2015 has brought about a significant change in policy by permitting the prosecution of 16-18-year-old juveniles as adults in cases of very serious offences (those punishable by a minimum of seven years imprisonment, including murder rape etc.), subject to a prior assessment. Section 15 deals with this matter in detail:
“Where a child who has attained or is above the age of sixteen years is alleged to have committed a serious crime, the Board shall examine the child’s mental and physical ability to commit such an offence, his/her understanding of the consequences of the offence and the factors leading to the commission of the offence through the preliminary assessment.”[1]
The evaluation needs to be done within a period of three months from when the child made their first statement in front of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). To arrive at a decision, the JJB might look for help from the psychologists, psycho-social workers, or other experts who are experienced.[2] If the Board decides that the child is appropriate for adult trial, then the case will be sent to the Children’s Court.[3] The order must be justified and it can be challenged. This provision came about after the 2012 Nirbhaya case and it aims to give importance to child rights as well as to the public’s demand for accountability in very serious crimes.[4]
Neurological Criminology and Adolescent Brain Development
Scientific and technological progress has also profoundly transformed the landscape of violence. For instance, Adrian Raine’s neurological criminology offers neurobiological evidence to support a reassessment of juvenile responsibility. Brain scans have shown that the prefrontal cortex, which is essential for executive functions such as planning, the inhibition of impulses, and making assessments of consequences, develops very slowly in teens. This “maturational gap” accounts for really 16-18-year-olds may commit very serious crimes, but the capacity for mens rea about the full adult development is lacking and the cognitive awareness of wrongfulness is present. Research conducted by Raine shows that low levels of prefrontal activity plus more reactive limbic systems are tied to increased tendencies towards antisocial behavior. Though keep in mind juvenile brain is the first combination of these predispositions that is underdeveloped and so highly malleable. So, juveniles are still children, and the justice system should be less focused on punishment and more on rehabilitation.[5]
Psychological Perspective on Preliminary Assessment Factors
Section 15’s initial evaluation calls for a psychological perspective combined with neurological criminology. The four statutory elements are mental and physical capacity, comprehension of consequences, and circumstances rely on professional opinion since the Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) often do not have a child psychology expertise within their team.
Psychologists use formal methods to dissect these aspects
- Mental and physical capabilities: The assessment is chiefly based on the intelligence testing, like the BinetKamat Test (BKT), Bhatia Battery of Intelligence, and Coloured Progressive Matrices, which help to estimate the child’s intellectual level and cognitive maturation. The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) reveals the child’s adeptness at navigating day-to-day social interactions. The physical capacity is assessed through the medical documentation reflecting the child’s health and physical status.[6]
- Ability to understand consequences: In this, he doesn’t just evaluate IQ but also measures emotional and neurodevelopmental maturity. To do so, experts assess areas like foresight, impulse control, and emotional regulation, which are frequently impaired due to prefrontal immaturity (Raine noted this). But, they importantly differentiate between knowing an act is wrong and truly understanding its social, interpersonal, and legal consequences.[7]
- Circumstances: A Social Investigation Report (SIR) drafted by a Probation Officer describes a child’s family background, the trauma or abuse he/she has been through, peer influences, and socio-economic conditions. For instance, a protocol of an institution like NIMHANS lays stress on a longitudinal psychosocial assessment that can work as a tool to pinpoint factors of vulnerability like mental health problems or developmental disabilities.
The Supreme Court in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu (2022)[8] pointed out that understanding whether a child is capable of the mens rea, or criminal intention, is quite a “delicate task” that needs expertise and is not simply a mechanical exercise. Still, on the ground reality indicates quite a few shortcomings: lack of national guidelines, employment of tests that are not suitable for the age of the child, and varying quality of experts. The psychological report should be a forensic one and should clearly connect the findings to the psycho-legal questions about the individual’s capacity for mens rea. Unfortunately, the courts have observed that there is a heavy reliance on the seriousness of the offence instead of considering the neurodevelopmental factors.
Case Laws: Juveniles (16-18 Years) Treated as Adults
Section 15 has been used by Indian judiciary in various significant cases. Some of these cases have involved evaluating psychological reports against the severity of the crimes committed
The Supreme Court has been involved in reviewing a case where a 16-year-old student was accused of murdering a schoolmate in Gurgaon in 2017. During the discussions, the Court gave a lot of thought to the initial assessment under Section 15. They stressed that such an assessment should not merely consider the seriousness of the crime but should mainly assess the mental capacity of the child and his/her understanding of the consequences. It was also emphasized that the decision of transfer to adult courts should be based on the psychological maturity of the child and not on his/her chronological age..[9]
In Juvenile X v. State of U.P.[10] After psychological tests (BKT IQ 66; mental age around 6 years) revealed borderline intellectual functioning, the Allahabad High Court overturned JJB’s order of transferring a 17-year-old accused of rape. The court emphasized that expert psychological evidence should be properly considered and disregard of it is not only a violation of Section 15 but also of Articles 14 and 21.[11]
These decisions reflect a selective approach: transfers are upheld where clear maturity and planning are evident, but courts intervene when assessments are superficial or fail to account for neurodevelopmental limitations.
Critical Reassessment: Psychological vs. Legal Tensions
Section 15 does consider psychological factors, even though there are some lapses in implementation like lack of standard operating procedures, inadequate staffing of JJBs and unclear reasoning in the orders. Still, taking 16-18-year-olds to be adults could be a violation of the “best interests” clause of the UNCRC as well as the mens rea standard of BNS when immaturity of the prefrontal cortex interferes with complete blameworthiness.[12] The legal fiction of processing adults may appease public anger at least on the surface, but it actually weakens the rehabilitation hopes brought forth by brain science crime study. Little hard data exist about crime rates after transfer, but empirical data shows that sentencing minors as adults results in a higher chance of reoffending.[13]
Conclusion
Section 15 aims to strike an uneasy balance between public demands for accountability and protection of children’s rights. On paper, the law takes into account factors like the child’s psychological state but in practice, there have been inconsistencies and developmental realities of children have often been neglected. To treat young offenders as adults is not only contrary to the juvenile justice system’s emphasis on rehabilitation, it also may not have any impact on reoffending. A clear and consistent strategy based on psychology is required for the juvenile justice system to be just, efficient, and really oriented toward the welfare of the child. National level standard operating procedures or guidelines need to be developed for conducting assessments under Section 15 to ensure uniform standards of fairness and consistency across different areas. To make child psychologists and forensic experts an integral part of JJBs or at least available to them cannot depend on mere discretion but must be made a matter of principle through specialised training.
References
[1] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, § 15(1) (India)
[2] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, § 15 proviso (India)
[3] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, § 15(3) (India)
[4] Mental Capacity & Ability to Understand Consequences of Acts Not Same: Guidelines Must Be in Place for Preliminary Assessment of Children Above 16 Years of Age for Trial as Adults, SCC Online (Aug. 18, 2022), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/18/preliminary-assessment-section-15.
[5]Adrian Raine & A. L. Glenn, Neurocriminology: Implications for the Punishment, Prediction and Prevention of Criminal Behaviour, 15 Nature Rev. Neuroscience 54 (2014).
[6] M. T. Kishore, G. A. Udipi & S. P. Seshadri, Clinical Practice Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Intellectual Disability, 61 Indian J. Psychiatry 194 (2019).
[7] Yaling Yang & Adrian Raine, Prefrontal Structural and Functional Brain Imaging Findings in Antisocial, Violent, and Psychopathic Individuals: A Meta-Analysis, 174 Psychiatry Res. 81 (2009).
[8] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu & Anr., (2022) 10 S.C.C. 537 (India)
[9] Mental Capacity & Ability to Understand Consequences of Acts Not Same, supra note 4.
[10] Juvenile X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 AHC 129556 (All.).
[11] Being Done Arbitrarily in Absence of Any Definite Parameters: Allahabad High Court Issues Guidelines for Preliminary Assessment under Section 15 Juvenile Justice Act, SCC Online (Oct. 14, 2025), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/10/14/allahabad-hc-issues-guideline.
[12] S. P. Srinivasan & S. S., A Comparative Review of UNCRC and Indian Legislation from the Child Mental Health Perspective, 46 Indian J. Psychol. Med. 289 (2024).
[13] Centre for Child Rights, Nat’l L. Univ. Odisha, Practice of Preliminary Assessment Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Study and Report (2019).