SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS :

1. Whether the petition in the present case is maintainable before the Hon’ble High
Court is maintainable?

PEPC contends that the petition challenging provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act
and the Board's decision is maintainable before the High Court. They argue that the Act's
provisions, when applied to serious crimes committed by juveniles, raise constitutional
concerns regarding fairness and protection of victims' rights. The Board's decision to try
Ayan, Anthony, and Surjeet as adults, despite their age, merits judicial review due to
potential bias and inconsistent application of the law. PEPC asserts that the High Court has
jurisdiction to address these issues in the interest of ensuring justice and safeguarding
children's welfare.

2. Whether it was justifiable for the Juvenile Justice Board to trial the defendants as
adults given their age at the time of the crime and their ability to understand the
Juvenile Justice Board's actions?
People for the Education and Protection of Children (PEPC) argue that trying Ayan,
Anthony, and Surjeet as adults was unjustifiable. PEPC contend that the defendants' ages at
the time of the crime (between 16 and 17) warrant special consideration under the Juvenile
Justice Act. PEPC asserts that the Board's decision undermines the rehabilitative purpose of
juvenile justice, neglecting the defendants' developmental immaturity and susceptibility to
external influences. PEPC advocate for a more nuanced approach, emphasizing rehabilitation
over punitive measures, to address the root causes of youth crime and protect vulnerable
adolescents from harsh adult sentencing.

3. Whether the provisions of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2012 violate Article 14
and Article 15 of the Constitution, and whether the classification of juveniles under the
Act is inconsistent with Article 20(1) of the Constitution and international provisions?
PEPC argues that Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2012 violates Article 14 and
Article 15 of the Constitution by discriminating against juveniles based solely on age. The
classification of juveniles under the Act, allowing them to be tried as adults, is inconsistent
with Article 20(1) and international standards of juvenile justice, undermining rehabilitation
efforts. The Board's biased decision-making exacerbates the injustice. These violations
compromise the constitutional rights and well-being of vulnerable youth, necessitating a
review of the Act's provisions to ensure fair treatment and protection.