Presently, the minors viz. those below 18 years of age are protected. Some went to supreme Court asking for reduction in age to 16 and not to protect a minor involved in heinous crime. The apex court has refused to interfere. This may be because it is not function of judiciary to make law.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1862137/report-supreme-court-refuses-to-reduce-age-of-juvenile-from-18-to-16-years

The meaning of ‘Minor’ has been constantly changing from generation to generation because of the constantly changing society with the times. Psychologists believe that most of the habits good and bad are formed during the formative years. A minor of yesteryear is entirely different from today’s minor. Hence I feel instead of reducing the age, its advised to put a curb on the factors influencing the minor’s erratic behavior without interfering with the fundamental rights.

The meaning of ‘Minor’ has been constantly changing from generation to generation because of the constantly changing society with the times. Psychologists believe that most of the habits good and bad are formed during the formative years. A minor of yesteryear is entirely different from today’s minor. Hence I feel instead of reducing the age, its advised to put a curb on the factors influencing the minor’s erratic behavior without interfering with the fundamental rights.

There is necessity for debate among sociologists, educationists and criminologists as well others on such sensitive issue. The issues involved need action on many fronts.

It is sad that the supreme court has refused to reduce the age of juvenilees. According to some some reports I have read ,psychoanalysts feel that there is not much difference between 14 year old mind that has criminal intent and a 18 year old mind that has similar intent since by 14 a child's bent of mind has already taken shape and unless he or she is counselled the chances are that the situation becomes worse with age and experience...

The meaning of ‘Minor’ has been constantly changing from generation to generation because of the constantly changing society with the times. Psychologists believe that most of the habits good and bad are formed during the formative years. A minor of yesteryear is entirely different from today’s minor. Hence I feel instead of reducing the age, its advised to put a curb on the factors influencing the minor’s erratic behavior without interfering with the fundamental rights.

There is necessity for debate among sociologists, educationists and criminologists as well others on such sensitive issue. The issues involved need action on many fronts.

Its important to include parents also in the debates.

It is sad that the supreme court has refused to reduce the age of juvenilees. According to some some reports I have read ,psychoanalysts feel that there is not much difference between 14 year old mind that has criminal intent and a 18 year old mind that has similar intent since by 14 a child's bent of mind has already taken shape and unless he or she is counselled the chances are that the situation becomes worse with age and experience...

True... we have an example of the juvenile in the recent Delhi incident where he in spite of being underage was the one who inflicted the most damage to the poor victim. Actually, all such cases must be studied and depending upon the degree of violence and perverseness, the juveniles should be tried. There should not be any hard and fast rule on the basis of age only.

Presently, the minors viz. those below 18 years of age are protected. Some went to supreme Court asking for reduction in age to 16 and not to protect a minor involved in heinous crime. The apex court has refused to interfere. This may be because it is not function of judiciary to make law.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1862137/report-supreme-court-refuses-to-reduce-age-of-juvenile-from-18-to-16-years

It is sad that the supreme court has refused to reduce the age of juvenilees. According to some some reports I have read ,psychoanalysts feel that there is not much difference between 14 year old mind that has criminal intent and a 18 year old mind that has similar intent since by 14 a child's bent of mind has already taken shape and unless he or she is counselled the chances are that the situation becomes worse with age and experience...

True... we have an example of the juvenile in the recent Delhi incident where he in spite of being underage was the one who inflicted the most damage to the poor victim. Actually, all such cases must be studied and depending upon the degree of violence and perverseness, the juveniles should be tried. There should not be any hard and fast rule on the basis of age only.

I was reading Charles Sobhrajs biography and according to that, Sobhraj had committed his first murder ar the age of eight !!! He had graduated to other things like drug peddling even before that....I am sure that the circumstances were very adverse during his childhood and there may have been ample reasons for his going the way he did....But we need to realise that leaving them and giving them a chance will not help, instead there should be a programe for reforming them and making them responsible citizens...