The British drama Adolescence begins with a chilling moment: armed officers burst into a home in West Yorkshire and take 13-year-old Jamie Miller into custody for allegedly stabbing a classmate. This opening scene blurs the boundary between treating kids and adults the same in legal situations. Yet, the story soon pivots to reveal something more essential — how the UK’s legal system responds when a child is accused of severe violence. Legal help arrives instantly, parents are involved throughout, and mental health professionals join early. The emphasis is not just on guilt or innocence but on how the justice process must adapt for a young mind.

Globally, countries grapple with how to handle children in conflict with the law. England sets the criminal responsibility age at just 10, but layers in protective structures — from separate youth courts to educational sentencing. In contrast, Norway leans towards healing: crimes by those under 15 fall under child welfare, and jail is a rare option. In the US, neurological research has pushed reform, proving teens lack adult impulse control and long-term judgement — a fact courts now recognise in key verdicts.

India’s 2015 juvenile law amendment — allowing 16–18-year-olds to face adult trials for major crimes — was more about public outrage than science. On the ground, courts lack child psychologists, protection norms are ignored, and rehabilitation homes remain poorly funded.

It’s time to draft a Bharatiya Kishora Nyaya Sanhita — a compassionate, evidence-based juvenile code that prioritises reform, not revenge.