In a developing country like India, juvenile delinquencies have become quite common. Juvenile crime, as the name implies, is a phrase used to describe when juveniles engage in criminal behavior. In India, youth wrongdoings are a harsh reality. The most terrible crimes, like as murder and gang rape, were committed by children. It's a terrible tendency, and such criminal behavior by children is upsetting to society as a whole. Individuals who are under the age of 18 are referred to as juveniles or minors. The definition of a child will be expanded upon and defined in this paper. In areas of investigation, trial, and correction, the juvenile justice system strives to treat juveniles differently than adults.

UNCRC has stated that the minimum age should not be lower than 12 years and that state parties must aim to increase it. India has failed on this front as the minimum age of criminal responsibility is seven years, much lower than the internationally prescribed standard of 12 years. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 presented an opportunity to give clarity but it failed to do so. This article attempts to examine and study who is a juvenile, what juvenile delinquency entails, the reasons or causes for the rising of juvenile delinquency in India, t

o critically analyze if there are any violations of rights, and also to critically analyze the reduction of age from 18 to 16 years under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2015 and if there is any violations under the presentact.

Anomie theory: According to Robert Merton, the primary cause of juvenile delinquency is the lack of means to make oneself happy. They fail to examine wrong and exemplary ways and engage in actions against the law of the land to attain their goals. So, according tothistheory,ifpeoplewerenotadequatelysocializedintosociety'ssharednorms and values, or if society was changing so rapidly that the shared models and values were unclear, deviation (and thus crime) was far more likely.

Darga Ram v. State of Rajasthan:[3] A 7-year-old Kamala (victim) was raped and killed by smashing her head with a stone in Darga Ram v. State of Rajasthan. Darga Ram, a deaf, dumb, and illiterate juvenile, was arrested when injurieswere discovered on his private parts, as well as blood stains matching the victim's blood group (Kamala). The appellant was found guilty under sections 302 and 376 of the IPC and sentenced to life in prison by the Sessions Court and the High Court. On the last appeal, the appellant added the defense of juvenility at the time the offense was committed. Because the appellant was illiterate and without any documentary evidence, such as a school or other credential, the court ordered that he be medically examined at the Medical College in Jodhpur. Following the procedure, the appellant's age was determined to be between 33 and 36 years old.

The apex court submitted that there was enough explanation for the determination of age on the basis of medical examination as per Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 which provides that whenever it is contended that the accused was a juvenile on the date of the commission of an offence, the court shall make and inquiry and take such evidence as may be necessary to determine the age of the child and Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Rule 2007, which says in the absence of matriculation certificate, birth certificate from the school and birth certificate from the municipal corporation, medical report will be considered from the Medical Board to determine the age of the Juvenile. The lower court, on the other hand, imposed the appellant's life sentence, which he had already served for four years. Section 2(d)(iii) of the JJA, 2000, which protects physically and mentally challenged children, never applied to the appellant because of his hearing and speech problems. This case helped the author to understand the significance of

raising the issue of why hearing and speech disability, as well as a lack of education until the age of seventeen, are not considered mitigating factors.[4]

1. Gupta, S. Biddala and M. Dwivedi, (2015), they studied the socio-demographic reasons, features, and aggressiveness quotient of children in confrontation with the law who were housed in observation homes across India. The authors of the study discovered that the selected juvenile delinquents come from very poor socioeconomic backgrounds, have a negative familial background, and so on. According to the writers, determining a single motive for a juvenile crime is impossible.Accordingtotheauthor,thereasonsforchildcriminalitydifferfrom one youngster to the next. The author has said that a mix of reasons such as a broken home, poor family situations, addicted parents, peer group pressure, or bad company of friends, among others, contribute to the rise in youth crime in India. Apart from that, academics have noted that children who have been afoul of the law are more violent than other youngsters. To prevent children from engaging in anti-social activities, crime, harmful and unlawful behavior, and to execute an appropriate juvenile justice policy, the authors concluded that it is important to identify the reasons of children being in confrontation with the law. This was significant for the author’s research topic.

A "child" is generally defined as someone who has not reached the age of 18 and is not mature enough to grasp what is right and wrong. Most countries' penal laws have embraced the notion of 'doliincapax' in the modern period, which entails understanding that the conduct they are committing is a crime. Only children aged seven to twelve can be convicted under the criminal laws, provided that the conduct they have committed is a terrible crime and they have knowledge of and have achieved sufficient knowledge of the repercussions of their act. A "child" is defined as a person who has not reached the age of eighteen, according to sub-section 12 of Section 2 of “ The Juvenile (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.¹ The term "child" is divided into two categories by the Act:[5] –

A "child in conflict with law" is someone who has committed an offence and is under the age of 18 at the time of the offence. A "child in need of care and protection," as defined by Section 14[6] of the Act, is the second subcategory.”

The Child Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000[7] was designed to ensure that juveniles' rights are protected, and it lays out procedures to follow when dealing with a juvenile who has broken the law. The future of the person and the nation is the guiding force behind the law dealing with juveniles, since they are considered the nation's building blocks, carriers of humanity, and so on. A coin, however, always has two sides. On one hand, there is the innocence or lack of maturity concerned with the age in issue in order to make their own decision, and on the other hand, there is the painful reality that juvenile delinquents commit horrible crimes no less than adults, and they do so in the ugliest form possible. The heinous Delhi gang rape case of

2012, as well as the Shakti Mills gang rape case[8], are enough to give anyone goosebumps. According to current statistics from the National Crime Record Bureau, the number of juvenile rape cases increased by 60% between 2012-2013.[9]

The goal of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is to consolidate and alter the law dealing with children alleged and found to be in conflict with the law, as well as children in need of care and protection (CNCP), by meeting their fundamental needs. The Act violates not only the Constitution but also the United Nations Convention on the Rights of theChild (UNCRC) by permitting children aged 16 to 18 to be prosecuted and sentenced as adults for allegedly committing terrible crimes punishable by imprisonment for seven years ormore.⁹

The current Legislation said that the experience formed in societies showed that minors between the ages of 16 and 18 who commit "heinous crimes" should not be protected by the act. According to the Ministry of Women and Children's Development, a stay in a reformatory home does not always result in behavioral change. While it is unclear which developed nation saw a reduction in juvenile crime through exposing adolescents to the criminal justice system, studying the experiences of the United States and the United Kingdom, which both theoretically qualify as developed countries, may be illuminating. The new Act violated so many provisions like Clause 25 of the Act, Clauses 7, 15(3), 16(1), 19(3), 20, 21, 22, provisos to 25(1) and 25(2), and 102(2)(a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children), 2015. And also, its controversies to the various international Conventions like Article 2, Article 6, Article 37(b), Article 40(2)(a), (b) (i), Article 37(b), (c) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Universal Declaration of Human Right, etc.[10] The previous juvenile justice system in India followed the rehabilitation model, but India is now taking a retributive  approach[11]  to grave offences committed by adolescents aged 16 to 18. The current Act needs to clarify a few ideas, such as what constitutes a child, what constitutes a heinous crime, what constitutes A heinous rime, and what constitutes "full contribution to the society." A few words were not explained by the Act.[12]

The New Act¹¹ is rehabilitative in nature, while the Children and Old Act¹² is retributive in   nature. It infringes on both constitutional and international provisions. The Act's main goal is to "consolidate and amend the law relating to children alleged to be in conflict with the law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, and social reintegration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation through processes." According to the Act's preamble, none of these goals can be achieved by sending children who have been accused of breaking the law and proven to be in violation of the law to a safe haven or the adult criminal justice system. Transferring these minors to adult jail will deprive them of not only protection and treatment, but also of their rightto physical and sexual assault by adult defendants and prisoners, leaving them with no choice but to continue a criminal career. Also, there is no clear definition of the term "child" or how to treat it as an adult.[13]

"The Juvenile Justice Act has failed utterly to protect the children in the country," according to the Justice Verma Committee report on "Amendments to Criminal Law."¹³ We cannot hold the

child responsible for a crime before providing to him/her the basic rights given to them by the Indian Constitution[14].’’ The research looked into the children's homes in depth and discovered that they lacked basic infrastructure, forcing them to grow and become subject to "sexual offences." The juvenile facilities are unable to provide the children with the essential constitutional rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Because their dietary, emotional, and mental needs are so minimal, individuals are frequently unable to cope and contribute to society.

The following suggestions are provided with all due regard for the existing law:

The study primarily focused on India's juvenile justice system. Since the colonial era, juvenile delinquency has been a social problem. Juvenile offenders were subjected to the same penalties as adults during this time. Delinquents confront a number of obstacles, including the possibility of jail, school dropout, drug usage, and an increased risk of adult criminality. Several programs aim to prevent delinquency and rehabilitate delinquents, but the majority of them fail to achieve crime since how people think and live impacts the general social decency of the next generation. Every year, millions of youths are arrested for delinquency, and even more engage in or are at danger of engaging in delinquent behavior. The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 proposes lowering the age of juvenile delinquents from 18 to 16 years. This is not a viable approach. It is commendable that the Indian legislature has attempted to fulfil the obligations outlined in the Convention; however, the government should work to properly implement the Act, as well as take a reformative approach by attempting to engage juveniles in skilled work so that they can live a peaceful life afterward. Although the causes that lead a child to commit a crime are unavoidable, their lives can be altered via suitable reformative techniques.