The Juvenile Justice System in India: A Comprehensive Analysis of its Evolution, Framework, and Challenges
Executive Summary
The Juvenile Justice System (JJS) in India represents a critical legal and social framework designed to address the unique circumstances of children in conflict with the law and those in need of care and protection. Evolving from a historically punitive approach to a more rehabilitative and child-centric model, the system is underpinned by the philosophy of doli incapax, recognizing the developmental immaturity of minors. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the JJS, detailing its foundational principles, historical development, the pivotal legislative shifts introduced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and its subsequent 2021 amendments. It further examines the institutional mechanisms, specifically the roles of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), and the distinct procedures for handling children under their purview. Despite progressive legislative intent, the system faces significant implementation challenges, including systemic inefficiencies, resource disparities, and philosophical tensions, particularly regarding the trial of older juveniles as adults. The ongoing struggle to bridge the gap between aspirational legal frameworks and practical realities highlights the complex interplay between societal demands for accountability and the imperative to safeguard children's fundamental rights.
1. Introduction to Juvenile Justice in India
The concept of juvenile justice in India has undergone a profound transformation, moving from a system that treated child offenders similarly to adults to one that prioritizes their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This evolution reflects a growing understanding of child psychology and the unique developmental stages of minors.
1.1. Definition, Core Philosophy, and Guiding Principles
The Juvenile Justice System (JJS) in India is a specialized legal framework established for the fair and just treatment of minors involved in unlawful behavior, with the overarching aim of fostering their positive development within society.1 It is designed to address issues related to children who commit offenses, typically those under the age of 18, by providing support and rehabilitation rather than solely focusing on punishment.2
At the heart of the JJS lies a core philosophy centered on rehabilitation over retribution. This approach is founded on the principle of doli incapax, which posits that children, due to their developmental immaturity, may not fully comprehend the nature or consequences of their actions and therefore lack the criminal intent attributed to adults.1 Consequently, the system adopts a
parens patriae philosophy, where the state assumes the role of a benevolent parent, providing care and protection.1 The primary purpose is to safeguard minors through effective treatment and to cultivate an environment conducive to human development, emphasizing rehabilitative measures over punitive ones.1
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, articulates sixteen guiding principles that collectively form a child-centric, rights-based approach, prioritizing the welfare, dignity, and rehabilitation of children.4 These principles include:
Principle of Presumption of Innocence: Children under eighteen are presumed innocent of criminal intent, acknowledging their developmental stage and limited understanding of consequences.4
Principle of Dignity and Worth: All children are to be treated with equal dignity, prohibiting degrading treatment and demanding humane approaches throughout all processes.4
Principle of Participation: Children possess the right to express their views in decisions affecting them, with their opinions given appropriate weight based on age and maturity.4
Principle of Best Interest: All decisions must prioritize the child's welfare, encompassing their physical and emotional well-being, developmental needs, and cultural background through individualized assessment.4
Principle of Family Responsibility: Biological, adoptive, or foster families bear the primary responsibility for children's care, with the system designed to support rather than replace families unless absolutely necessary.4
Principle of Safety: Comprehensive measures are mandated to ensure children's physical and emotional safety throughout their contact with justice and care systems, protecting them from any form of harm.4
Principle of Positive Measures: Resources from family, community, and state must be mobilized to create supportive environments and address root causes of vulnerability through preventive approaches.4
Principle of Non-Stigmatizing Semantics: Accusatory language is prohibited in proceedings involving children to prevent harmful labeling that can damage self-image and future prospects.4
Principle of Non-Waiver of Rights: No child's rights can be waived by anyone, safeguarding children from decisions that might compromise their interests due to pressure or vulnerability.4
Principle of Equality and Non-Discrimination: Discrimination on any grounds is prohibited, with equal access to services required for all children, including appropriate accommodations for those with special needs.4
Principle of Privacy and Confidentiality: Children's privacy must be protected through confidential records, closed hearings when appropriate, and media restrictions to prevent stigmatization.4
Principle of Institutionalization as Last Resort: Children should be placed in institutional care only after exhausting all alternatives, recognizing the potential harms of removing children from family environments.4
Principle of Repatriation and Restoration: Children have the right to family reunification and restoration to their original status at the earliest opportunity when in their best interest.4
Principle of Fresh Start: Past records should be erased in most circumstances, allowing children to begin anew without their future opportunities being limited by past actions.4
Principle of Diversion: Alternatives to formal judicial proceedings should be promoted when appropriate, including counseling, community service, or restorative approaches.4
Principle of Natural Justice: Procedural fairness must be ensured, including the right to a fair hearing, protection against bias, and the right to review decisions throughout all processes.4
The JJS is intrinsically linked to the protection of fundamental rights, which are basic human rights recognized and safeguarded by the Indian Constitution.7 These rights are paramount for ensuring individual freedoms and dignity, forming the bedrock of a democratic society.8 Specifically, the constitutional values enshrined in Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a fair trial and dignity, are profoundly relevant to the administration of juvenile justice.11
While the legislative intent and philosophical foundation of the JJS are progressive and align with international standards, there exists a notable disjuncture between the normative ideal and its practical application. The consistent emphasis on "bridging the broad gap between practice and theory" 1 and the documented implementation challenges 3 reveal that the system, despite its aspirational framework, often struggles against systemic and practical constraints. This can lead to outcomes that do not fully embody the "best interest of the child" principle, creating a critical tension between the stated goals and the actual experiences of children within the system.
1.2. Historical Evolution of Juvenile Justice Legislation
Historically, India lacked a distinct legal framework for juveniles. Children who committed offenses were often subjected to the same harsh treatment as adult criminals, including imprisonment without trial, and even capital punishment.1 This undifferentiated approach persisted for centuries.
The emergence of a separate juvenile justice system in India can be traced back to the British colonial era.1 A significant milestone was the establishment of the first juvenile court in Bombay in 1920.2 Following India's independence, legislative efforts continued, leading to the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. This Act marked a crucial step by formally recognizing juveniles as individuals requiring specialized care and protection, moving away from purely punitive measures.2
A pivotal development occurred with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This landmark legislation was designed to consolidate and amend existing laws, providing a comprehensive framework for the proper care, protection, and treatment of juveniles through a child-friendly approach.14 Critically, the 2000 Act brought India's domestic law into alignment with its international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which India ratified in 1992.5 A significant revision introduced by this Act was the universal shift in the legal definition of a child from 14 years and below to 18 years and below, ensuring a broader protective umbrella for minors.14 This demonstrates how international human rights instruments serve as powerful catalysts for domestic legal reform, compelling nations to align their internal laws with global standards of child protection and human dignity. The 2000 Act was thus a major advancement in institutionalizing a rights-based, rehabilitative approach, marking a definitive departure from past punitive practices.
2. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, represents a significant legislative overhaul, replacing the 2000 Act. This new legislation aimed to further consolidate and amend the law concerning children in conflict with the law (CCL) and children in need of care and protection (CNCP), with a continued emphasis on a child-friendly approach.5
2.1. Objectives and Key Provisions for Children in Conflict with Law (CCL)
The 2015 Act defines a "child" or "juvenile" as any person who has not completed eighteen years of age. A "child in conflict with law" is specifically defined as a child alleged or found to have committed an offense who had not completed eighteen years of age on the date the offense was committed.17 The Act upholds the principle of "once a juvenile, always a juvenile," meaning that if a person was a child at the time of the offense, they will be dealt with under the JJ Act, irrespective of their age at the time of apprehension or inquiry.17
A key aspect of the 2015 Act is the categorization of offenses committed by juveniles:
Petty offenses: These are offenses for which the maximum punishment under the Indian Penal Code or any other law is imprisonment up to three years.18
Serious offenses: These generally involve imprisonment ranging from three to seven years.19
Heinous offenses: These are crimes that carry a minimum or maximum sentence of seven years or more.19
The most significant and controversial provision introduced by the 2015 Act is the allowance for juveniles aged 16 to 18 years, who are involved in "heinous offenses," to be tried as adults.14 This marked an unprecedented shift in India's juvenile justice history.16 The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is tasked with conducting a preliminary assessment to determine if the crime was committed with the mental and physical capacity and understanding of consequences typically associated with an 'adult'.16 This particular provision was enacted amidst considerable public outrage following the December 2012 Delhi gang rape case, where one of the accused was a few months shy of 18 and was tried under the less stringent provisions of the previous Act.16 This event spurred widespread demands for lowering the age of criminal responsibility for certain severe crimes.16 The introduction of this adult trial provision, despite criticism from child rights organizations 16, illustrates how a high-profile incident, amplified by public sentiment, can drive a significant policy alteration. This change fundamentally challenges the
doli incapax principle and reflects a societal compromise between the rehabilitative ideal and the demand for retributive justice, raising questions about whether all minors truly lack criminal intent in severe cases.
2.2. Key Provisions for Children in Need of Care and Protection (CNCP)
Beyond addressing children in conflict with the law, the 2015 Act also provides comprehensive provisions for children in need of care and protection (CNCP). These provisions aim to cater to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, and social re-integration.5
The Act broadly defines CNCP to include children found without a home or means of subsistence, those who are threatened, abused, or neglected, mentally or physically challenged children without support, or those whose parents or guardians are deemed unfit or incapacitated to care for them.5 The framework includes provisions for various Child Care Institutions (CCIs), such as Children Homes, open shelters, observation homes, special homes, places of safety, and Specialised Adoption Agencies (SAAs), all of which are mandated to be registered under the Act.5 Furthermore, the Act includes provisions for "aftercare," offering support, financial or otherwise, to individuals aged 18 to 21 who have transitioned out of institutional care to join mainstream society.5
While the legal framework identifies and aims to protect highly vulnerable children, the very institutions designed to provide care often fall short of meeting basic standards. A report by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in 2018-19 highlighted widespread breaches of JJ Act regulations and unsanitary conditions in many CCIs.19 Further observations indicate issues such as poor hygiene, lack of segregation between different age groups of children, and safety concerns in observation homes.3 The presence of dangerous vocational training equipment, insufficient outdoor activity facilities, poor CCTV systems, open wires, and inadequate sleeping arrangements and lighting in these institutions have also been noted.3 This situation reveals that despite the legal provisions, a systemic under-resourcing and lack of proper oversight can undermine the protective goals, potentially exacerbating children's vulnerability rather than alleviating it.13 This directly contradicts the fundamental principle of "Safety" enshrined in the Act, transforming places intended for protection into potential sites of further harm or neglect.
2.3. Provisions for Adoption and Foster Care
The 2015 Act introduced significant reforms aimed at streamlining and universalizing adoption processes in India. It sought to create a more accessible adoption law for orphaned, abandoned, and surrendered children.16 To enhance effectiveness and oversight, the existing Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) was granted statutory body status.16 The Act dedicates an entire chapter to adoption, outlining detailed provisions and specifying penalties for non-compliance.16 It also streamlined processes for both in-country and inter-country adoptions, establishing clear timelines for declaring a child legally free for adoption.16
A notable change was the extension of the reconsideration period for parents surrendering a child for adoption, increasing it from one month to three months.16 The Act also introduced the concept of foster care, allowing families to temporarily take in abandoned, orphaned children, or those in conflict with the law, with provisions for state monitoring and financial aid.16 Priority in adoption is given to disabled children and those who are physically and financially incapable.16 Furthermore, the Act incorporated concepts from the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption, 1993, which were absent in previous legislation.16
While these provisions reflect a clear progressive intent to provide stable, family-based care, aligning with international standards, their implementation has faced practical hurdles. The 2021 amendment's rationale for transferring adoption order powers from civil courts to District Magistrates explicitly cited "overwhelming backlogs" and cases "taking years to be finalized" under the previous judicial purview.19 This development highlights that even well-intentioned legislative reforms can be hampered by systemic inefficiencies and bureaucratic delays. The shift of authority to District Magistrates, while aimed at expediting processes, raises questions about whether administrative expediency might inadvertently compromise the rigorous judicial scrutiny essential for sensitive matters such as adoption. It also prompts consideration of whether District Magistrates, despite their expanded responsibilities, possess the specialized training and resources necessary to effectively manage these complex legal and social processes.19 This situation underscores a recurring pattern of implementation challenges despite legislative advancements.
3. Institutional Framework and Processes
The effective functioning of the Juvenile Justice System in India relies on a dual institutional framework, comprising Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) for children in conflict with the law and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) for children in need of care and protection. These bodies are supported by various other agencies and child care institutions.
3.1. Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs): Roles, Functions, and Procedures for CCL
Juvenile Justice Boards are integral components of the childcare system, primarily responsible for addressing matters concerning children in conflict with the law.12 Their fundamental objective is socio-legal rehabilitation and reformation, not punitive punishment.12 Each JJB is composed of a Principal Magistrate, who is a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, and two social workers, at least one of whom must be a woman.12
The powers and functions of JJBs are extensive:
They conduct proceedings related to CCLs, including decisions on bail and preliminary assessments.18
They inquire into a CCL's involvement in offenses.18
They can issue orders for the continuation of a child's studies and conduct monthly inspections of Observation Homes.18
They have the authority to order the police to register First Information Reports (FIRs) for offenses committed against CCLs.18
JJBs must ensure that medical reports are obtained within 15 days of a child's production, and any mental health issues are promptly addressed.12
They also review their own work and address pendency of cases.18
The process for handling a CCL begins with apprehension:
A CCL can generally be apprehended only for "heinous offenses" or when it is deemed to be in their best interest for petty or serious offenses.18
Upon apprehension, the child must be placed under the charge of the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or a Child Welfare Police Officer (CWPO).18
Police officers dealing with a CCL are required to be in plain clothes, not in uniform, and for girl children, women police personnel must be engaged. They are mandated to be polite, soft-spoken, and maintain the child's dignity and self-esteem.18
Strict protocols prohibit contact between the child and any adult accused or victim. If both the victim and the alleged offender are children, they are also not to be brought into contact with each other.18
Handcuffing, chaining, or any form of physical restraint or coercion is strictly prohibited.18
Under no circumstances can a CCL be placed in a police lock-up or lodged in jail; they must be kept in an Observation Home or a suitable facility until produced before the JJB.18
The police are required to inform the child's parent or guardian and the Probation Officer (or CWPO) upon apprehension, facilitating the preparation of a Social Investigation Report within two weeks for submission to the Board.18
The SJPU is obligated to inform the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to ensure the child receives free legal aid immediately, with empanelled Legal Aid Counsels available at every JJB.18
A copy of the FIR or police report must be promptly provided to the child through their parent or guardian.18
Interrogation of a CCL is termed an "interview" and must occur in a child-friendly setting, ideally not resembling a police station or custodial interrogation. The parent or guardian can be present, and the child cannot be compelled to confess guilt.18
A Social Background Report (FORM-1), reflecting the child's socio-economic condition, must be prepared by the SJPU or CWPO at the time of apprehension and forwarded to the Board at the first hearing.18
The apprehended child must be produced before the JJB within twenty-four hours, excluding travel time.18 If the JJB is not sitting, the child can be produced at the residence of a JJB member, as one member should always be accessible for emergencies.18 FIRs are typically registered only for heinous offenses or cases involving adult co-offenders; otherwise, information is recorded in a General Daily Diary and forwarded to the Board.18
Bail is considered a matter of right for a CCL, irrespective of whether the alleged offense is bailable or not, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would expose the child to danger, associate them with known criminals, or defeat the ends of justice.18 The gravity of the offense alone is not sufficient grounds for bail denial.18 Decisions on bail are informed by interaction with the child and their parents/guardian, as well as the Social Background and Social Investigation Reports, which are crucial for rehabilitation and social reintegration considerations.18
Age inquiry is conducted as per Section 94 of the Act. Initially, age is determined by appearance. If inconclusive, birth certificates from school, municipal authorities, or Panchayats are considered. If these are unavailable, an ossification test or other medical age determination test is ordered and must be concluded within fifteen days.17 A person cannot waive their right to claim juvenility, and such a claim can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even after final disposition.18
The JJB's inquiry process is designed to be child-friendly, with members not sitting on a raised platform and no barriers like witness boxes, promoting direct interaction with the child and parents.18 The inquiry must be completed within four months from the child's first production, with a possible two-month extension. For petty offenses, proceedings are terminated if inconclusive after the extended period. For serious or heinous offenses, further extensions can be granted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.18
For heinous offenses committed by children aged 16-18, a preliminary assessment is conducted by the JJB to determine if the case should be transferred to the Children's Court for trial as an adult.18 This assessment evaluates the child's mental and physical capacity, understanding of consequences, and the circumstances of the offense, while upholding the presumption of innocence.18 This assessment must be completed within three months, and an appeal against the JJB's order lies with the Sessions Court.18
Upon disposition, if a child is not found in conflict with the law, they are released and returned to parents/guardians. If no suitable guardian is available, the child may be declared a Child in Need of Care and Protection (CNCP) and referred to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC).18 If found involved in an offense, the JJB can issue various orders, including advice or admonition, counseling, community service (for children over 14), fines, probation of good conduct, or placement in a Special Home for reformative services.18 In cases transferred to the Children's Court, the child is tried as an adult, but cannot be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of release.18 A child dealt with under the JJ Act does not suffer disqualification attached to a conviction under any other law, and records of conviction are generally destroyed after the appeal period or seven years, except for those tried as adults by the Children's Court.18
Appeals against JJB orders (except preliminary assessment orders) are filed in the Children's Court within 30 days, with a mandate for decision within 30 days. No appeal lies from an order of acquittal, except in heinous offenses by a child aged 16 or above.18 The High Court retains revisionary powers to review proceedings from the Committee, Board, or Children's Court.18 Other provisions ensure that if a child turns 18 during an inquiry, the Board can continue proceedings as if they were still a child, and a CCL cannot be tried jointly with an adult co-offender.18
3.2. Child Welfare Committees (CWCs): Roles, Functions, and Procedures for CNCP
Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), established under Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, are crucial bodies in each district responsible for the care, protection, treatment, development, and rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection (CNCP).23
Each CWC comprises a Chairperson and four other members appointed by the State Government, with at least one member being a woman and another an expert in child-related matters.23 Members must have at least seven years of active involvement in child welfare activities or possess a degree in relevant fields such as child psychology, law, or social work.23 CWCs function as a Bench and possess the powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of First Class under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.23 The District Magistrate (DM) conducts quarterly reviews of CWC functioning and serves as the grievance redressal authority.23
The procedures for CNCP involve a series of steps aimed at ensuring their well-being, safety, and development.6 This process includes:
Identification and Reporting: The initial step involves identifying children at risk through reports from concerned individuals or agencies. Public awareness campaigns and helplines are crucial for encouraging confidential reporting of child abuse and neglect.6 Any individual or organization finding an abandoned, lost, or orphaned child must inform the CWC (or related services) within 24 hours, with failure to do so being a punishable offense.23
Assessment and Inquiry: Once identified, authorities conduct assessments and inquiries to determine the child's specific needs and circumstances, and whether they require protection and care.6 The CWC plays a central role in deciding appropriate placement, which may include foster care, adoption, or institutional care.6
Surrendered Child: Parents or guardians wishing to surrender a child due to uncontrollable factors must produce the child before the Committee. After inquiry and counseling, a surrender deed is executed, and parents are given two months to reconsider their decision.23
Inquiry Process and Timeframes: Upon receiving a child or report, the Committee conducts an inquiry, which may involve placing the child in a Children’s Home or other suitable facility and directing a speedy social investigation. Social investigations must be completed within 15 days, and the CWC must pass a final order within four months of the child's first production.23
Placement of Young Children: Children under six years who are orphans, surrendered, or abandoned are ideally placed in a Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA).23
Declaration for Adoption: For eligible children, the Committee completes the inquiry and declares them legally free for adoption, typically within two months for children up to two years and four months for older children.23
Rehabilitation and Support: Comprehensive rehabilitation and support services are provided, encompassing counseling, education, healthcare, and family support. This includes expanding family support programs, streamlining foster care and adoption, improving quality of residential care, ensuring access to education and skill development, integrating mental health support, and providing legal aid.6
Periodic Review: The child's case is subject to periodic review to ensure ongoing well-being and adaptation of services to changing needs.6
Quarterly Reports to DM: The Committee submits quarterly reports on case disposal and pendency to the District Magistrate for review.23
CWCs have broad general powers, including authority to dispose of cases for CNCP's care, protection, and rehabilitation, exclusive jurisdiction over CNCP matters under the JJ Act, and the ability to take suo motu cognizance of cases.23 They also conduct inspection visits to residential facilities, certify surrender deeds, and coordinate with various agencies like police and labor departments.23 Orders passed by the Committee can include restoration to family, placement in Children’s Homes or SAAs, foster care, sponsorship, and directions for medical attention, psychological support, and education.23 Strict provisions prohibit the disclosure of a child's identity in media reports, unless deemed to be in the child's best interest.23
4. Challenges and Criticisms
Despite its progressive legal framework and child-centric philosophy, the Juvenile Justice System in India faces significant challenges in its implementation and effectiveness, leading to ongoing criticism.
4.1. Implementation Gaps and Systemic Issues
A primary concern is the substantial gap between the legislative intent and the practical realities on the ground. Reports indicate persistent issues such as overcrowding in juvenile homes, delays in case disposal, and insufficient rehabilitation programs.13 These systemic inefficiencies are compounded by understaffing and inadequate facilities within the institutional framework.13
A critical observation is the disparity in resource allocation, which directly undermines the rehabilitative goals and the principle of "dignity and worth".4 For instance, a study revealed that observation homes and Child Care Institutions (CCIs) often suffer from poor hygiene, lack of proper segregation between different age groups of children, and safety concerns.3 Specific deficiencies noted include dangerous carpentry work in observation homes, lack of proper equipment for outdoor activities, dirty grounds, poor hygiene in toilets and bathrooms, and inadequate CCTV systems.3 In girls' observation homes, issues like unhygienic common halls, rusted play equipment, heavy food vessels carried by girls, open wires, insufficient training materials, and lack of proper beds and lighting were identified.3 These physical conditions and the lack of basic amenities reflect a systemic under-resourcing that directly impedes the provision of a safe, nurturing, and rehabilitative environment for children under state care.
Furthermore, there is a pervasive lack of awareness regarding juvenile rights among both children and stakeholders, coupled with a persistent social stigma against young offenders.3 Concerns also exist regarding the overrepresentation of marginalized groups, such as street children and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, within the juvenile justice system, highlighting underlying socioeconomic causes of delinquency that are not adequately addressed.3
4.2. Criticisms of the JJ Act, 2015 (especially 'Heinous Offenses' provision)
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly its provision allowing the trial of 16-18 year olds as adults for heinous offenses, has drawn considerable criticism from child rights activists, social workers, and non-governmental organizations.16 Many have labeled it a "regressive step," arguing that it contradicts established international standards, such as the UNCRC, which sets the age of criminal culpability at 18.16
This shift is perceived by critics as a philosophical retreat from the core rehabilitative ideal of doli incapax. The argument is made that many children in conflict with the law are socio-economic victims, deprived of fundamental rights like education, health, and shelter, and therefore should be prioritized for education and rehabilitation rather than punishment.20 The move to treat certain juveniles as adults is seen as a response to public demand for harsher penalties, particularly after high-profile cases, rather than a reflection of sound child development principles.16 This approach potentially conflicts with the constitutional right to life and liberty, which emphasizes fair trial and dignity for every individual, including children.11 Concerns have also been raised regarding the "opaque Age Determination System" and various drafting errors within the Act.16 The criticism often centers on the idea that merely lowering the age for adult trials, even in exceptional cases, is not a comprehensive solution to the complex issue of juvenile involvement in serious crimes.20
4.3. Challenges with the JJ Amendment Act, 2021
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, while aiming to strengthen child protection and streamline adoption, has introduced new challenges.
One significant change is the transfer of the power to issue adoption orders from civil courts to District Magistrates (DMs).19 While this was intended to expedite adoption proceedings and address overwhelming backlogs 19, it raises concerns about potential unintended consequences of expediency. District Magistrates, despite their expanded responsibilities, are typically not trained or equipped to handle the specialized legal and social complexities involved in child protection and adoption cases.19 This administrative shift, while aiming for efficiency, may inadvertently compromise the judicial scrutiny crucial for such sensitive matters, potentially affecting the "best interest of the child" principle.
A particularly problematic change in the 2021 amendment is the reclassification of some "serious offenses" (punishable with imprisonment between three and seven years) as "non-cognizable".22 This reclassification has several adverse effects:
It prevents the police from arresting the accused without a warrant and initiating an investigation without court permission.22
Such delays in investigation can provide perpetrators with opportunities to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses.24
This amendment is seen as weakening the law's ability to confront grave offenses against children, such as abduction, trafficking, smuggling, and illegal substance peddling, which disproportionately affect vulnerable groups like street children.22
Critics argue that this change effectively shields perpetrators of crimes against children, who are predominantly adults, by making reporting more difficult.22
The rationale provided in Parliament for making serious offenses non-cognizable, namely to prevent children from being arrested without a warrant, is considered flawed. The protection of children from unnecessary arrest primarily stems from existing rules regarding pre-production actions of the police, not from the classification of offenses.24 This legislative change, therefore, has a negative impact on the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act and India's commitment to child rights at the international level.24 Concerns have also been raised about the quality of legal aid and the low number of cases that reach the Legal Services Authority, further exacerbating the vulnerabilities of children within the system.24
5. Conclusion
The Juvenile Justice System in India has undergone a significant evolution, transitioning from a punitive approach to a framework rooted in rehabilitation and the "best interest of the child." This transformation, largely influenced by international human rights instruments like the UNCRC, is codified in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and its subsequent 2021 amendments. The system's dual structure, comprising Juvenile Justice Boards for children in conflict with the law and Child Welfare Committees for children in need of care and protection, reflects a comprehensive legal and institutional design aimed at safeguarding the dignity and developmental needs of minors.
However, the analysis reveals a persistent tension between the aspirational principles enshrined in the legislation and the practical realities of its implementation. While the system articulates a progressive, child-centric philosophy, challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, understaffing, delays in case disposition, and a lack of proper oversight in child care institutions continue to undermine its effectiveness. The controversial provision in the 2015 Act allowing older juveniles to be tried as adults for heinous offenses, a direct response to public demand for harsher penalties following high-profile cases, represents a philosophical departure from the doli incapax principle. Furthermore, the 2021 amendments, while seeking to streamline processes like adoption, have introduced new complexities, particularly by reclassifying certain serious offenses as non-cognizable, which may inadvertently weaken protections against crimes committed against children.
Ultimately, the Indian Juvenile Justice System stands at a critical juncture, striving to balance the imperative of accountability with the fundamental rights and rehabilitative needs of children. The effectiveness of this system hinges not solely on legislative advancements but critically on robust, well-resourced, and consistently applied implementation mechanisms that prioritize the holistic well-being and successful reintegration of every child.
Works cited
Juvenile Justice System In India – Eduindex News, accessed July 12, 2025, https://eduindex.org/2022/01/23/juvenile-justice-system-in-india/
Understanding Juvenile Justice: A Path to Rehabilitation for Minors - Manupatra Articles, accessed July 12, 2025, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Understanding-Juvenile-Justice-A-Path-to-Rehabilitation-for-Minors
“A RESEARCH STUDY ON THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND ITS IMPACT ON JUVENILES” A Group Report submitted To Maharashtra State, accessed July 12, 2025, https://www.mshrc.gov.in/pdf/internship/winter-program/Report%20PDFs.pdf
Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act: The 16 Guiding Principles - Drishti Judiciary, accessed July 12, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-juvenile-justice-act/section-3-of-the-juvenile-justice-act-the-16-guiding-principles
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015 NO. 2 OF 2016 An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating - CARA, accessed July 12, 2025, https://cara.wcd.gov.in/pdf/jj%20act%202015.pdf
Procedures in Relation to Children in Need of Care and Protection ..., accessed July 12, 2025, https://ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Procedures-in-Relation-to-Children-in-Need-of-Care-and-Protection-and-Children-in-Conflict-with-Law-in-India.pdf
Fundamental Rights - (Intro to Law and Legal Process) - Vocab ..., accessed July 12, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-law-legal-process/fundamental-rights
Fundamental Rights: Definition, Importance | Vaia, accessed July 12, 2025, https://www.vaia.com/en-us/explanations/law/public-law/fundamental-rights/
www.vaia.com, accessed July 12, 2025, https://www.vaia.com/en-us/explanations/law/public-law/fundamental-rights/#:~:text=They%20provide%20citizens%20with%20both,the%20protection%20of%20human%20dignity.
Importance of Fundamental Rights and Its Impacts on Physical ..., accessed July 12, 2025, https://jrtdd.com/index.php/journal/article/download/274/210/289
Reforming India's juvenile justice act, accessed July 12, 2025, https://www.civillawjournal.com/article/138/5-2-3-465.pdf
(PDF) JJ ACT INDIA - ResearchGate, accessed July 12, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391470155_JJ_ACT_INDIA
EXPLORING JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS - Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, accessed July 12, 2025, https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/EXPLORING-JUVENILE-DELINQUENCY-AND-THE-JUVENILE-JUSTICE-SYSTEM-IN-INDIA-CHALLENGES-AND-SOLUTIONS.pdf
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Wikipedia, accessed July 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_Justice_(Care_and_Protection_of_Children)_Act,_2000
Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 - CID Crime Branch Odisha Police, accessed July 12, 2025, https://odishapolicecidcb.gov.in/sites/default/files/Juvenile%20Justice%20%28Care%20And%20Protection%20Of%20Children%29%20Act%2C%202000.pdf
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ..., accessed July 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_Justice_(Care_and_Protection_of_Children)_Act,_2015
An Overview of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 With Regard To - S3waas, accessed July 12, 2025, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s37a68443f5c80d181c42967cd71612af1/uploads/2025/03/202503191170688164.pdf
Frequently Asked Questions under JJ Act, 2015 - Juvenile Justice ..., accessed July 12, 2025, https://jjcdhc.nic.in/?page_id=1619
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill ..., accessed July 12, 2025, https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/juvenile-justice-care-and-protection-of-children-amendment-bill-2021
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA - Manupatra, accessed July 12, 2025, http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/85D28740-6B71-4969-970D-18EDDC7E245B.pdf
Critical Analysis on Juvenile Justice Enactment Act, 2015, accessed July 12, 2025, https://alcadvocates.com/legal-news-and-blogs/critical-analysis-on-juvenile-justice-enactment-act-2015
Issue with the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act, 2021 - Drishti IAS, accessed July 12, 2025, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/issue-with-the-juvenile-justice-amendment-act-2021
Child Welfare Committee, accessed July 12, 2025, https://prachicp.com/tarunya/sharelink/Child_Protection_Smart_kit/CHILDPROTECTIONMATERIALS/ENGLISH/1.%20Final%20English%20Modules/Module%205_CWC.pdf
Juvenile Justice Amendment Act 2021 – A Critical View, accessed July 12, 2025, https://leilaseth.org/juvenile-justice-amendment-act-2021-a-critical-view/
Comments
Post a Comment