Engraved Slates & Ruptured States: Critiquing Juvenile Criminalisation

Abstract

This article interrogates the tension between juvenile victimization and offending through the socio-legal perspectives of Locke, Rousseau, and Foucault. It contends that the Indian juvenile justice framework, particularly under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, entrenches a retributive dichotomy between punishment and welfare. Children experiencing structural neglect, developmental vulnerabilities, and social marginalization are frequently criminalized rather than protected, violating constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15(3), 21, and 39 of the Constitution of India. Locke’s environmental determinism, Rousseau’s conception of natural innocence, and Foucault’s critique of disciplinary power together expose the flaw in treating juveniles as miniature adults. The reliance on retributive models disregards developmental neuroscience and the empirical reality of victim-offender overlap shown in NCRB data. The Supreme Court’s decision in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu highlights the procedural and substantive flaws of treating adolescent maturity as equivalent to adult culpability. Against this background, the article proposes a statutory “Vulnerability Defense” recognizing developmental immaturity, trauma, and structural disadvantage as factors precluding adult trial. It further advocates transforming detention centers into trauma-informed therapeutic communities. By embedding vulnerability into legal culpability, the juvenile justice system can move toward a holistic model reconciling constitutional morality with child rights.