INTRODUCTION

The evolution of juvenile justice in India reflects a journey that intertwines historical
shifts and international influences. It began during the British era with the
‘Apprentices Act of 1850’ which aimed to redirect young offenders away from adult
prisons and into apprenticeship programs. This early attempt marked a significant step
toward recognizing the need for specialized handling of juvenile delinquency.

In 1876, the introduction of reformatory schools further emphasized a shift from

punishment to rehabilitation, establishing a framework that prioritized the well-being
of young offenders. The ‘Code of Criminal Procedure’ in 1861 and 1898 also
contributed to this evolution by laying down guidelines for juvenile trials and setting
age limits for juvenile offenders, ensuring a more humane approach.

The global landscape began to influence India's juvenile justice system significantly in
the latter half of the 20th century. The ‘Children Act of 1960’ was a pivotal moment, as
it unified various juvenile laws across states into a comprehensive framework. This act
emphasized a child-friendly approach, focusing on the best interests and rights of
children, whether they were neglected or engaged in delinquent behavior.

Internationally, the ‘Beijing Rules’ adopted in 1985 and the ‘United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child’ in 1992 played crucial roles in shaping India's
commitment to juvenile justice. These frameworks encouraged a welfare-oriented
approach, stressing rehabilitation over punitive measures, and underscoring the
importance of aligning national laws with international standards.

Overall, the journey of juvenile justice in India illustrates a dynamic interplay between
domestic legislation and international commitments, reflecting an evolving
understanding of children's rights and the need for a compassionate, rehabilitative
approach to juvenile offenders. This evolution continues to be guided by the
fundamental belief that every child deserves a chance for a better future.
 HISTRORICAL BACKGROUND OF JUVINILE JUSTICE IN INDIA

The evolution of juvenile justice in India is a compelling story that highlights both
historical developments and global influences. It all began during the British colonial
period with the ‘Apprentices Act of 1850’, which was the first attempt to address
juvenile delinquency. This act aimed to keep young offenders out of adult prisons,
offering them apprenticeships instead—an early recognition that children needed
different treatment from adults.

In 1876, the introduction of reformatory schools marked another significant shift.

These institutions focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment, signaling a
growing understanding that young people could change and grow when given the right
support. Additionally, the ‘Code of Criminal Procedure’ in 1861 and 1898 established
a legal framework that included specific age limits for juvenile offenders and outlined
separate trial procedures, further protecting the rights of children in conflict with the
law.

As the world evolved, so did the understanding of juvenile justice. The ‘Beijing
Rules’, adopted in 1985, emphasized the importance of welfare and rehabilitation for
juveniles. This was complemented by the ‘United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child’ in 1992, which required countries, including India, to meet international
standards in protecting children's rights.

A major milestone in this journey was the ‘Children Act of 1960’, which replaced
earlier, fragmented laws with a unified approach. This act underscored the need for a
child-friendly system, focusing on the care, protection, and rehabilitation of both
neglected and delinquent children. It placed the child's best interests and rights at the
forefront of juvenile justice, moving away from punitive measures toward a more
compassionate and supportive framework.

These legislative changes reflect an ongoing dialogue between India’s domestic needs
and international obligations, illustrating a commitment to understanding and
addressing the unique challenges faced by children. The evolution of juvenile justice
in India is not just about laws and policies; it's about recognizing that every child
deserves a chance to thrive, and that with the right guidance and support, they can lead
positive, productive lives.
 KEY PROVISIONS

Juvenile Justice Board

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is a crucial component of the juvenile justice system
in India, established under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015. Here’s a detailed overview of its structure, functions, and procedures:

Structure and Composition

1. Constitution:
o Each district in India is mandated to have at least one Juvenile Justice
Board.
o The JJB consists of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of
First Class and two social workers, one of whom must be a woman.

2. Eligibility for Members:

o The social workers must have been actively involved in health,
education, or child welfare activities for at least seven years.
o They should possess a degree in law, sociology, psychology, or
psychiatry.

3. Term of Office:
o Members are appointed for a term of three years and can be reappointed
for another term.

Functions and Powers

1. Adjudication:
o The JJB is responsible for adjudicating cases involving juveniles in
conflict with the law.
o It ensures that the proceedings are conducted in a child-friendly manner
and that the rights of the juvenile are protected.
 2. Assessment:
o The JJB assesses whether a juvenile aged 16-18 years involved in a
heinous offense should be tried as an adult. This decision is based on the
juvenile’s mental and physical capacity to commit the offense, their
ability to understand the consequences, and the circumstances of the
offense.

3. Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration:

o The JJB plays a significant role in the rehabilitation and social
reintegration of juveniles. It can order the juvenile to be placed in
Observation Homes, Special Homes, or Place of Safety.

4. Monitoring and Supervision:

o The JJB monitors the implementation of its orders and ensures that the
juvenile receives appropriate care and protection.

Procedures
1. Inquiry:
o The JJB conducts an inquiry into the alleged offense. This process is
informal and aims to understand the juvenile’s background and
circumstances2.
o The inquiry must be completed within four months from the date of the
first production of the juvenile before the JJB.

2. Disposition:
o Based on the inquiry, the JJB can pass various orders, including
counseling, community service, or placement in a child care institution.

3. Transfer to Children’s Court:

o For heinous offenses, the JJB can transfer the case to the Children’s
Court, which will decide whether the juvenile should be tried as an adult.
Challenges and Criticisms
1. Implementation Issues:
o There are challenges related to the effective implementation of the JJB’s
orders, including inadequate infrastructure and lack of trained personnel
.
2. Punitive vs. Rehabilitative Approach:
o The provision to try juveniles as adults for heinous crimes has been
controversial, with debates on whether it undermines the rehabilitative
focus of juvenile justice.

Children’s Court:
The Children’s Court in India plays a vital role in the juvenile justice system,
specifically designed to handle cases involving children, particularly in serious
offenses. Here’s a closer look at how it operates and the challenges it faces.The
Children’s Court is defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). According to Section 2(20), a Children’s Court can be:

1. A court established under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005.
2. A Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)
Act, 2012.
3. In areas without designated courts, it refers to the Court of Sessions with jurisdiction
over offenses under the JJ Act.

Purpose
The main aim of the Children’s Court is to ensure that young individuals, especially
those involved in serious offenses, are tried in a way that respects their age and
developmental needs. It seeks to strike a balance between holding them accountable
and promoting rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Jurisdiction
The court deals with cases of juveniles aged 16-18 years accused of heinous crimes,
which are offenses carrying a minimum punishment of seven years. Initially, the
Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) assesses whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult
and can transfer the case to the Children’s Court for trial.
Composition
The Children’s Court is presided over by a judge trained in child psychology and
welfare, ensuring that the proceedings are sensitive to the needs of young individuals.

Procedures
The court follows less formal procedures, creating an environment that encourages the
juvenile’s understanding and participation. It ensures access to legal aid and maintains
the privacy of the juvenile throughout the process.

A key feature of the Children’s Court is its emphasis on rehabilitation over

punishment. The court can order various rehabilitative measures, such as counseling,
community service, or placement in child care institutions, aiming to help the juvenile
reintegrate into society.

Implementation Issues
One of the significant challenges is the effective implementation of the Children’s
Court provisions. There are concerns about inadequate infrastructure and a lack of
trained personnel. Additionally, ensuring that every district has access to a Children’s
Court remains a challenge.

Balancing Accountability and Rehabilitation

The decision to try juveniles as adults for serious crimes has sparked controversy.
Critics argue that this may undermine the rehabilitative focus of juvenile justice. The
challenge lies in maintaining a child-friendly trial process while addressing the
severity of the offense.
The Children’s Court represents a progressive step in recognizing the unique needs of
juveniles in the justice system. While it faces challenges, its foundation is built on the
belief that every child deserves a chance for redemption and a path toward a better
future. Through careful implementation and a focus on rehabilitation, the Children’s
Court aims to foster a more compassionate and effective approach to juvenile justice in
India.
Special Provisions Related to Heinous Offences
The process involving juveniles accused of heinous offenses in India is both sensitive
and complex, emphasizing the need to treat young individuals with care and
understanding.

Preliminary Assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)

When a juvenile aged 16-18 years is alleged to have committed a serious crime, the
Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) steps in to conduct a preliminary assessment. This
assessment is crucial as it determines whether the juvenile should be tried as an adult.
The JJB looks closely at several factors, including:

Mental and Physical Capacity: The board assesses whether the juvenile had the mental
and physical ability to commit the offense.
Understanding Consequences: They evaluate if the juvenile can grasp the
consequences of their actions.
Circumstances of the Offense: The context surrounding the offense is also considered,
ensuring a holistic view of the situation.

Transfer to the Children’s Court

If the JJB decides that the juvenile should face adult charges, they can transfer the case
to the Children’s Court. Here, the trial is conducted in a manner that is sensitive to the
needs of young people. The court aims to create a child-friendly environment,
protecting the rights of the juvenile throughout the proceedings.

Placement in a Place of Safety

While the trial is ongoing, and even afterward, juveniles who are tried for heinous
offenses are placed in a place of safety. This arrangement lasts until they turn 21 years
old. After reaching this age, an evaluation takes place to determine their future whether
they can be released on probation or if they need to serve any remaining time in an
adult facility.

Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration

A key focus of the Juvenile Justice Act is on rehabilitation and social reintegration,
even for those involved in serious crimes. Various child care institutions and programs
are available to support this process. The idea is not just to punish but to provide the
necessary resources for these young individuals to rebuild their lives and reintegrate
into society.
.
Amendments and Recent Developments
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021
introduced several changes to address gaps and streamline processes:
• Empowerment of District Magistrates: District Magistrates are now
empowered to issue adoption orders, ensuring faster processing.

• Enhanced Role of Child Welfare Committees (CWCs): CWCs are given

more responsibilities to ensure the welfare of children in need of care and
protection.

• Stringent Measures for Heinous Crimes: The amendment reinforces the

provisions for trying juveniles aged 16-18 as adults for heinous crimes.

Challenges and Criticisms

• Punitive vs. Rehabilitative Approach: The provision to try juveniles aged 16-
18 as adults for heinous crimes has been controversial. Critics argue that it
undermines the rehabilitative focus of juvenile justice and may not be in the
best interest of the child.

• Implementation Issues: Effective implementation of the Act remains a

challenge, particularly in terms of infrastructure, trained personnel, and
resources.There are also concerns about the consistency and quality of care
provided in child care institutions.

• Awareness and Training: There is a need for greater awareness and training
among law enforcement, judiciary, and child welfare officials to ensure the
effective implementation of the Act.
 Case Laws

Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013):

In this case, Salil Bali, a social activist, challenged the constitutional validity of certain
provisions in the **Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000**,
particularly concerning the age of juveniles. The context arose from concerns about
the increasing involvement of minors in heinous crimes and the perceived leniency of
the juvenile justice system.
1. Age of Juvenility: The primary issue was whether the definition of a juvenile,
particularly the age limit set at 18 years, should be reconsidered. There were calls to
lower this age limit for certain serious offenses, allowing for harsher punishments.

2. Rehabilitation vs. Punishment: The case highlighted the ongoing debate between
rehabilitating young offenders and ensuring public safety, especially in light of heinous
crimes committed by juveniles.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the need to strike a balance between the rights of
juveniles and the safety of society. The Court emphasized that while the juvenile
justice system should focus on rehabilitation, it also recognized the necessity of
accountability for serious offenses.

The case contributed to discussions that eventually led to amendments in the Juvenile
Justice Act in 2015, allowing for the trial of juveniles aged 16-18 years as adults for
heinous crimes.

The judgment raised awareness about the complexities of juvenile crime and the need
for a more nuanced approach that considers both the rights of children and the safety
of society.

The Salil Bali case underscored the critical challenges facing the juvenile justice
system in India, balancing the need for rehabilitation with societal protection. It played
a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape surrounding juvenile offenders,
influencing subsequent reforms aimed at addressing the issue of juvenile delinquency
more effectively.
Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2017):
The case of Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2017) is a poignant
chapter in India's struggle for justice, stemming from the tragic and brutal gang rape
and murder of a young woman, known as Nirbhaya, on December 16, 2012. This
incident not only shocked the nation but also ignited widespread protests and
conversations about women's safety and the legal system's shortcomings in addressing
sexual violence.

Nirbhaya's horrific ordeal became a rallying point for activists and citizens alike,
highlighting the urgent need for change in how society views and handles violence
against women. The public outcry was not just about one tragic incident; it was a
reflection of deep-rooted issues surrounding gender inequality and the inadequacies of
the justice system.

1. Severity of the Crime: The actions of Mukesh Singh and his co-accused were not
merely crimes; they were acts of extreme brutality that left an indelible mark on the
national consciousness.

2. Death Penalty: The trial court's decision to impose the death penalty was a powerful
statement about the gravity of the crime. It underscored the necessity for a strong
deterrent against such heinous acts, as society grappled with how to respond to
violence against women.

Supreme Court Judgement

In 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentences for Mukesh Singh and another
co-accused. The judgment carried significant weight:

1. Nature of the Crime: The Court described the crime as "brutal, barbaric, and
demoniac," emphasizing the profound suffering inflicted on Nirbhaya and her family.
This characterization served to honor her memory and the pain experienced by her
loved ones.

2. Public Safety: The ruling reinforced the need for protective measures for society,
recognizing that the death penalty could serve as a deterrent to prevent similar crimes
in the future.
3. Role of the Juvenile: The involvement of a minor among the accused raised
important questions about the juvenile justice system. The case highlighted the
complexities of handling severe offenses committed by young individuals and sparked
discussions about the need for reform in this area.

Implications
1. Legal Precedent: The judgment set a crucial precedent for how the judiciary views
extreme violence against women, reinforcing the principle that such acts warrant
severe consequences.

2. Reform in Laws: Following the case, there was a renewed focus on legislative
reforms regarding sexual violence, leading to significant changes in laws under the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. These reforms aimed to strengthen legal
provisions for the protection of women.

3. Public Discourse: The case ignited a national dialogue about gender-based violence,
pushing issues of women's safety and rights to the forefront of public consciousness. It
became a catalyst for advocating systemic changes within society.

The Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi case is more than just a legal battle; it
represents a critical moment in India's ongoing quest for justice and equality. It
reminds us of the need for compassion, systemic change, and a commitment to
ensuring that no one has to endure what Nirbhaya did. This case continues to resonate,
serving as a call to action for a safer and more equitable society for all women.
 Conclusion

The juvenile justice system in India, guided by the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, marks a crucial step toward safeguarding the rights
and futures of children who come into conflict with the law. This legislation embodies
a compassionate approach, prioritizing care, protection, and rehabilitation while
striving to reintegrate young individuals into society as responsible members.

Child-Centric Approach : The Act underscores the importance of treating juveniles

differently from adults. It acknowledges their developmental stages and the potential
for positive change, fostering a more understanding and supportive environment.

Rehabilitation and Reintegration : There’s a strong focus on rehabilitation through

various programs and child care institutions. The aim is to provide juveniles with the
necessary support to help them reintegrate successfully into society, empowering them
to lead fulfilling lives.

Legal Safeguards : The establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards and Children's Courts
ensures that young people are tried in a manner that respects their rights. These bodies
are designed to create a more child-friendly legal process, helping to protect the
dignity and well-being of juveniles.

Challenges : Despite these progressive measures, the system faces challenges related
to effective implementation, inadequate infrastructure, and the delicate balance
between punitive actions and rehabilitation. Addressing these issues is vital for the
system to function as intended.

Moving Forward: To enhance the juvenile justice system, it’s essential to tackle
implementation gaps and provide proper training for all personnel involved. Ensuring
adequate resources and infrastructure will create a more supportive environment for
rehabilitation. Raising awareness about the rights and needs of juveniles is also
crucial.The journey toward a more effective juvenile justice system is ongoing. With
sustained commitment and collective effort, India can provide its children with the
opportunities they deserve to grow and thrive in a safe, nurturing environment. Every
child deserves a chance to rewrite their story, and a robust juvenile justice system is
key to making that possible.