TITLE

JUVENILE JUSTICE

SUBJECT

SOCIOLOGY
NAME OF FACULTY

PROF. DR M. LAXMIPATI RAJU

STUDENT
NAME:-MANSI MISHRA
ROLL NO.:- 19LLB053
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it
treats its children.”

- Nelson Mandela.

“Children need love, especially when they do not deserve it.”

- Harold S Hulbert, child psychiatrist

 INTRODUCTION
The term juvenile justice emerged from the word Juvenis, in latin it means Young so a justice
system for the young. Historically the concept of juvenile justice was derived from a belief that
the problems of juvenile delinquency in abnormal situations are not amenable to the resolution
within the framework of traditional process of criminal law. Recognition of the rightful place of
the child in the societal fabric, a paradigm shift from a need- based approach to a right-based
approach, aspiring development and mainstreaming of the child, was a high water mark of
progressive democracies in the last century. Child-centric human rights jurisprudence has
become pivotal in the law’s role in social engineering. Over the time a need felt in ensuring that
juvenile justice system beside catering the needs of young offenders only it also provide
specialized and preventive treatment services like community support, harmonizing impersonal
state intervention with the family, community and institutional interventions for the children and
as a means of prevention, rehabilitation and socialization through schools and religious bodies.
The Juvenile Justice System in India, the ripple effect of the criminal justice system, has always
been marked by the tussle between the protective approach of juvenile justice and the traditional
approach of the latter. Despite the Constitutional guarantees and a plethora of child-centric
legislations and civil rights, innumerable Indian children, face widespread discrimination and
deprivation. During the British Rule certain laws were enacted to address the issue of juvenile
delinquency and child welfare. laws like Whipping Act of 1864 was passed to punish the
juvenile through whipping and then setting him free so that he should not repeat the same act, it
was to deter the child against committing crime. The Indian Penal code Act 1860 and criminal
procedure code 1861 treating child differently through various procedures. Act XIX of 1850,
1876 reformatory schools act, the Borstal School Act, Children’s act of 1920, and other state
specific legislations like Bengal children’s Act, Madras children’s Act to address neglected and
deviant children’s these laws gave delinquents some special provisions regarding their
Institutionalization and rehabilitation. Colonial masters dealt with the problem of delinquents,
through the laws of Reformatory schools and Borstal School Act to reform and rehabilitate
juvenile delinquents. Although there were state laws the children’s Act but post–Independence a
central law The Juvenile Justice Act 1986 was introduced for a uniform system, procedure and
personnel in the domain of juvenile justice throughout the country, in this Act the age of male
juvenile was kept at sixteen years while the girl age was kept at eighteen years. 4 These cut off
age were chosen because in the children Act 1960 where the age was sixteen years and also the
children bill of 1953 which defined children as below sixteen years also because of the Bombay
children Act of 1948 which was one of the model legislation.

As this law was passed prior to the UNCRC 1989 which India ratified in 1992. 5 In 2000 the
former law was repealed and a new law which was more exhaustive and one of the best law was
enacted The Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act 2000 but the age was kept at
16 only later it was Amended in 2006 to increase the age of the child which increased to 18 years
to adhere the International ratified laws. The juvenile justice is one of the step taken by the state
so as to attain constitutional vision of India pertaining care and welfare of children. The
provisions of constitution which grants the special status to the children Article 15(3), 24, 39(e)
& (f) and 45, National policy for children 1974, 2013, declare that children are national
asset. Further through constitutional directions many other laws and statutory provisions have
been enacted to protect the rights of children like RTE 2009, child labor prohibition act 1986, JJ
act 1986, later JJ(C&P) Act 2000.

The Constitutional Scheme on the Protection of Juveniles:

Article 15(3) enables the State to make special provisions for children. Entitlement to free and
compulsory education up to14 years has been read into Article 21. Articles 23&24 further
enshrine fundamental protections and Article 45 is supplementary to Article 24. Article 24 in
turn supplements the Article 39(e)&(f) thus ensuring distributive justice to children in the
matter of education.

WHO IS A ‘CHILD’?
According to international law, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years. This
is a universally accepted definition of a child and comes from the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), an international legal instrument accepted and ratified by most
countries.India has always recognised the category of persons below the age of 18 years as
distinct legal entity. That is precisely why people can vote or get a driving license or enter into
legal contracts only when they attain the age of 18 years. Marriage of a girl below the age of 18
years and a boy below 21 years is restrained under the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929.
Moreover, after ratifying the UNCRC in 1992, India changed its law on juvenilejustice to ensure
that every person below the age of 18 years, who is in need of care and protection, is entitled to
receive it from the State. What makes a person a ‘child’ is the person’s ‘age.’ Even if a person
under the age of 18 years is married and has children of her/his own, she/he is recognised as a
child according to international standards.

HISTORY

Development of Juvenile Justice System in India

Independence ushered in a new era for children in the country. The Constitution of India took

care of survival, development and protection needs of children by making relevant provisions in

‘Fundamental Rights’ and ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’.

Children Act 1960

The special status accorded to children in the Constitution and the fact that there was a
substantial growth in the number of destitute, neglected and delinquent children in the wake of
partition, saw some special programmes being taken up to meet the needs of this group of
children during the First Five-Year Plan. Industrialization coupled with urbanization further
brought forth its own set of problems for children. One of them was increase in cases of juvenile
delinquency in large cities, the most common offence being theft. As legislation for dealing with
delinquent children existed only in few states, the Government of India enacted the Children Act
1960. The Act, however, was applicable only to the Union Territories as it was a model to be
followed by the states in the enactment of their respective Children Acts. The 1960 Children
Act, provided for the care, protection, maintenance, welfare, training, education and
rehabilitation of neglected and delinquent children. For the first time in India, the Children Act
prohibited the imprisonment of children under any circumstance. It provided for separate
adjudicatory bodies – a children court and a child welfare board - to deal with delinquent and
neglected children. The Act also introduced a system of three-tier institutions, namely, an
observation home for receiving children during the pendency of their proceedings, a children’s
home for accommodating neglected children, and a special school for delinquent children. It,
however, introduced a sex discriminatory definition of child.Child in case of a boy was one who
was below 16 years and in case of a girl below 18 years of age. All states subsequently enacted
similar, but not exactly the same Children Acts. The definition of the term child differed from
state to state. As a result, delinquent and neglected children were subjected to differential
treatment emanating from the diverse conceptions of child and childhood.

Juvenile Justice Act 1986

The need for a uniform Children Act across the country paved the way for the enactment of the
1986 Juvenile Justice Act (JJA). It promoted ‘the best interest of the juveniles’ by incorporating
into its fold not only the major provisions and clauses of the Indian Constitution and the 1974
National Policy Resolution for Children but also the universally agreed principles and standards
for the protection of juveniles such as the 1959 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the
Child and the 1985 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice (Beijing Rules). The JJA overruled imprisonment of juveniles in police lock-up or jail.
Other than this, it stipulated two main authorities – a juvenile welfare board and a juvenile court
– to deal with neglected and delinquent juveniles. It also stipulated establishment of various
kinds of institutions for the care of juveniles – a juvenile home for the reception of neglected
juveniles, a special home for the reception of delinquent juveniles, an observation home for the
temporary reception of juveniles during the pendency of any inquiry regarding them, and an
after-care home for the purpose of taking care of juveniles after they were discharged from a
juvenile home or a special home. It further guaranteed a wide range of dispositional alternatives
with preference for family or community-based placement, and a vigorous involvement of
voluntary agencies at various stages of the juvenile justice process. The basic ideology for
adopting this differential approach was to save children from devastating ill-effects of
criminalization, penalization and stigmatization. With the enactment of the JJA, the “welfare”
approach gave way to the “justice” paradigm (Maharukh Adenwalla: 2006). But the
implementation of the JJA had many loopholes in terms of age determination, separate trials,
court proceedings, notification of charges to parents or guardians, filing of reports by probation
officers, reasons for and length of confinement, rehabilitation and after care of juveniles. The
juveniles were often not provided with a copy of the rules governing their detention and the
written description of their rights. Many juveniles housed in institutions run by the government
did not know the purpose of their stay and the future of their institutionalization. Like the 1960
Children Act, the JJA too promoted a sex discriminatory definition of a juvenile. Moreover, most
of the states and union territories who had formulated their Rules for the implementation of the
JJA were devoid of the basic infrastructure consisting of juvenile welfare boards, juvenile courts,
observation homes, juvenile homes, special homes and after care homes. They had also not taken
up the required measures for observance of minimum standards for institutional care or for the
advancement of non-institutional care, such as foster care, sponsorship, adoption, etc. The chasm
between reality and the application of the law was felt all the more with the adoption of the 1989
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and its ratification by the Government of India in
1992. The provisions of the CRC with regard to children in conflict with law were amplified in
two other United Nations instruments - the United Nations Guidelines for the Administration of
Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines) and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of
Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (JDL Rules). Both provide detailed directions about the
processes to be followed by the juvenile justice system in dealing with persons below the age of
18. The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna and the successive adoption of
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action which urged States to ratify and implement
promptly the CRC too made a definitive impact on all those concerned with the plight of these
children in India including the government.
Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
Children) Act 2000
Taking a cue from all these developments, the government recast the JJA so that it could be
inconsonance with the CRC and brought in a new Act, the 2000 Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Act. The passing of this Act endorsed the “justice” as well as the “rights”
approach towards children and moreover made use of a better terminology by providing for
“juveniles in conflict with law” and “children in need of care and protection”. It calls for keeping
both the categories separate pending their inquiries. This segregation aims to curb the bad
influence on the child who is in need of care and protection from the one who is in conflict with
law. The JJA 2000 brings about standardization in the definition of a ‘juvenile’ or a ‘child’
across the country except for Jammu and Kashmir. A ‘juvenile’ or ‘child’ is a person who has
not completed eighteenth year of age. Juveniles in conflict with law include all those children
alleged to or found to have committed an offence. They are to be handled by the juvenile justice
board. Children in need of care and protection cover a range of ‘at risk’ children to be dealt by
child welfare committee. While dealing with juveniles and children, it gave importance to their
respective families for tendering of advice and counselling. It furthermore introduced a wide
range of community placement options for juveniles and children. The 2000 Act, though passed
with good intentions, overlooked the inclusion of certain substantive and procedural due process
rights.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) (Amendment) Act 2006
JJA 2000 was further amended in 2006 to make it clear that juvenility would be reckoned from
the date of commission of offence who have not completed eighteenth year of age thus clarifying
ambiguities raised inArnit Das vs State of Bihar [(2000] 5 SCC 488]. The amendment also made
it clear that under no circumstances, a juvenile in conflict with law is to be kept in a police lock-
up or lodged in a jail. In addition, it stipulated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate is to review the pendency of cases of the Board at every six months, and
child protection units should be set up in states and districts to see to the implementation of the
Act. 1

National Human Rights Commission and

Measures for Juvenile Justice System
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is an embodiment of India’s concern for the
promotion and protection of human rights. Ever since the NHRC came into existence, it has been
concerned about the plight of juveniles who come in conflict with law and children who are in
need of care and protection. While the Law Division of the NHRC has been dealing with
complaints; the Policy Research, Projects and Programmes Division of the NHRC has been
monitoring the implementation of the related Act at the national level as well as studying and
recommending effective application of those international instruments that intend to improve the
overall functioning of the juvenile justice system in the country. Some instances of NHRC
intervention in this regard are given below.

Deaths and Rapes in Homes set up under JJA

1986
In September 1996, the NHRC called for information with regard to incidents of deaths and
rapes in Homes set-up under the JJA 1986 within 24 hours of its occurrence by writing to the
Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all the States/Union Territories. Later, in February 2002, the
NHRC modified its existing instructions on the subject directing that an inquest by a Magistrate
be conducted immediately in all cases of deaths in Homes and the report – including comments
on possible medical negligence – to be sent to the NHRC. In case of any allegation of
rape/unnatural offence on any inmate of the Home, a criminal case should be registered
immediately against the offending staff member/officer and a copy of the FIR and the

1
Delinquency, development, and social policy
supervision note should invariably be sent to the NHRC. If any foul play is suspected in the
magisterial inquest, the post-mortem examination should invariably be done and the post-mortem
report sent to the NHRC. In all cases of death of an inmate where the initial inquest by a
Magistrate indicates some foul-play, magisterial inquiry should be made mandatory.

INTERNATIONAL LAW REGIME

The erstwhile League of Nations (1924) and the United Nations (1959) had adopted
Declarations on the Rights of Children- significant but non-binding. The seeds for the right-
based approach were sown in the ICCPR 1966. The eloquent evolution of the juvenile justice
system has culminated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989, a legally
binding instrument. It brings those less than 18 years of age under the ambit of the term
‘children’. Articles 37 and 40 specifically and when read with the General Comment No.10,
Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, lay down a comprehensive mechanism that States must
comply with, taking note of the overall framework of the CRC and its main ‘umbrella rights’.
The aforesaid provisions must be read with the following international guidelines:

• Beijing Rules 1985;

• Riyadh Guidelines 1990;

• JDL Rules 1990;

• Tokyo Rules 1990;

• Guidelines for

€ Action on Children in the Criminal Justice System, ECOSOC Resolution 1997;

€ Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, ECOSOC resolution
2005;

€ Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, ECOSOC resolution
2005.Preventing juveniles from coming into conflict with law in the first place and complete
rehabilitation by the time they leave the system is sought through alternative measures of
‘Diversion’ and ‘Restorative Justice’.

India’s International Commitments and National

moves on the issue:

The second UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders at London
resulted in the enactment of the Central Children Act, 1960, followed by a National Policy in
1974. India ratified the CRC in 1992; introduced a National Charter in 2003 and a National Plan
of Action in 2005; and ratified in 2005 the CRC’s two optional Protocols besides signing the
SAARC Conventions. The concern over the issue is reflected in the report of the Working Group
on Development of Children for the Eleventh Plan (2007-12) of the Planning Commission. The
CCA was replaced by Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, in conformity with Beijing Rules, which was
thereafter repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, amended
in 2006. It has established the Child Welfare Committee to address the needs of ‘children in need
of care’ and the Juvenile Justice Board to deal with ‘children in conflict with the law’.

CHILD RIGHTS

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) was set up in March 2007
under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, an Act of Parliament (December
2005). The Commission’s Mandate is to ensure that all Laws, Policies, Programmes, and
Administrative Mechanisms are in consonance with the Child Rights perspective as enshrined in
the Constitution of India and also the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Introduction to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2000
The Title of the Act stresses on the need for care and protection to both categories of children.
Uniform age for both boys and girls – any child who has not completed the age of 18 fall within
the jurisdiction of the Act to comply with the CRC definition of the child. Separation of child in
need of care and protection and child in conflict with law. Constitution of Child Welfare
Committees to deal with children in need of care and protection and Juvenile Justice Boards to
handle children in conflict with law. The category of children in need of care and protection has
been expanded to include victims of armed conflict, natural calamity, civil commotion, child
who is found vulnerable and likely to be inducted into drug abuse. More legal protection assured
for the child in conflict with law – detention to be resorted to as the last option, disqualification
of past records and privacy maintained.2 The innovation the law makes with respect to children
in need of care and protection is the conceptualization of restoration of the child as being the
focal point, with restoration being conceptualized as restoration to parents, adopted parents or
foster parents. (Sec39). The law outline four options of restoration for children in children’s
homes and special homes which include adoption, foster care, sponsorship and after care (The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006). The Amendment Act
of 2006 brought about 26 amendments which are in force. This Act forms the legal system and
framework for the care, protection, treatment and rehabilitation of children of both categories.

Salient features of Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children)

Act 2000:

1. a. The Act known as ‘The Reformatory Act’ deals with two categories of children, namely
children in need of care and protection and children in conflict with the law. b. The competent
authority to deal with children in need of care and protection is the Child Welfare Committee
which constitutes a Chairperson and four other members, one of whom atleast should be a
woman. Chapter IV of this Module would focus in detail about Children in need of care and
protection and the functioning of the CWC in rehabilitation and disposition of cases c. Juvenile
Justice Board (JJB) is the competent authority to deal with children in conflict with law which

2
Delinquency, development, and social policy
comprises of three members. The Chairperson of the Board should be a First Class Judicial
Magistrate and two honorary social workers out of whom at least one should be a woman.

2. The Act provides for the establishment of various kinds of Institutions such as - Children’s
Home for the reception of child in need of care and protection. - Special Homes for the reception
of child in conflict with law - Observation Homes which are meant for the temporary reception
of children during the pendency of any inquiry. - After-care Organizations which are meant for
the purpose of taking care of children after they have been discharged from Children’s Home or
Special Homes.

3. A few sections in the Act (Sec 23 – 26) are focused on the offences committed by anyone
against a child such as assault, causing mental or physical suffering and employment of a child
which are considered as non bailable offences. iii. Rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act 2000 (56 of 2000) and the Amendment Act 33 of 2006): The
Ministry of Women and Child Development at New Delhi, the 26th day of October, 2007
notified the Model Rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000
and the Amendment Act 2006 to be administered by the States for better implementation and
administration of the provisions of the Act in its true spirit and substance. These rules calledthe
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 has come into force on the date of
its publication in the Official Gazette and these Rules will be conformed to until the concerned
State Government formulates Rules specific for the State with effect to implementation of the JJ
Act. The Act in Section 68 prescribes various areas wherein the Rules can be applied to for better
implementation of the Act, specifically with management of the homes, standards to be adhered
to, roles and responsibilities of the JJ functionaries, procedures and functioning of the competent
authorities, rehabilitation mechanism and operation of JJ Fund.

Major problems identified with Juvenile Justice Act of 2000

1. No flexible procedure for sentencing

2. This is a system in which the maximum amount of sentence served by a delinquent who say
partakes in armed robbery in order to feed himself is the same as the one given out to a serial
rapist or murderer; just so long both are under eighteen years of age. This is the serious problem
identified with the Act.
3. There is no logical or scientific reason which shows that total and complete rehabilitation can
be achieved by a delinquent/ offender/ child in conflict with the law within a maximum period of
three years.

4. The act does not deal with physical and psychological maturity of a Juvenile.

5. Provisions of Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of

Inter-Country Adoption, 1993 failed to reflect in the Act.

JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE & PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN) ACT, 2015
The Government even after facing strong opposition and condemnation from various sections of
the society passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which

will now allow children in the 16-18 age group to be tried as adults if they commit heinous
crimes.19 The bill which was pending in Parliament, where the government despite lacking a
majority, managed to get it passed. The amendments were prepared in the backdrop of public
outcry over the Delhi gang rape case of 2012 in which a juvenile accused received a lighter
punishment because of his age. Apart from the hue and cry from society against the Act, several
members in Lok Sabha also opposed the controversial amendment that provides for treating
juveniles between the age of 16 - 18 years on par with adults for crimes such as rape. It is
necessary to understand that Rehabilitation and not retribution should be the policy and therefore
it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Act carefully to assess its possible impact on
society.3

Examination of Act: Analysis of notable amendments:

1. Any child that found committing any crime will now be send for a preliminary assessment for
a period of three months, up from the earlier one month

3
Law relating of juvenile justice in India
2. A clarification is added that the preliminary assessment is not a trial, but to assess the child’s
capacity to commit the crime.

3. The Act will allow a Juvenile Justice Board, which would include psychologists and
sociologists, to decide whether a juvenile criminal in the age group of 16–18 should tried as an
adult or not.

4. A new clause on fair trial is added, under which the assessment will look into the special needs
of the child, under the tenet of fair trial under a child-friendly atmosphere.

5. The child will not suffer from any disqualification that arises from any conviction under the
Act.

6. The records of any conviction will be destroyed after the expiry period of appeal, except in the
case of heinous crimes.

7. Biological parents giving up children for adoption, will be given three months to rethink their
decision, instead of the existing one month.

8. The Act introduces foster care in India.

9. The aftercare of the child in institutional care will not be restricted to only one time.

10. Any child leaving institutional care can now receive financial support more than one time.

11. Disabled children will be given precedence in inter-state adoption.

12. Abandoned children, found by the childcare facilities, will be kept for 60 days before being
given up for adoption or foster care, instead of the existing 30 days.

13. Any child who has been abandoned by biological parents due to unavoidable circumstances
will not be considered to be wilfully giving up the child.

14. In acting on an appeal against an order passed against the child, the board will now take help
of experienced psychologists and medical specialists.

15. There will now be proper training of special juvenile units in the police force.
16. NCPCR and SCPCR will be the nodal authorities to be responsible for monitoring
implementation, the publicity of the amended act, and to look into cases that arise out of the Act.

17. The discretionary powers will be given to Juvenile Justice Board to transfer juveniles to
criminal court for trial and punishment. “Since JJB is presided over by Chief Judicial Magistrate
of the district, one could assume that the chances of transfer of adolescents to adult court would
apparently be more.

18. Judicial weavers as provided in the present Act, that will subject a juvenile to the jurisdiction
of the regular criminal court to be tried as an adult will not create any kind of deterrent effect and
may turn juvenile into a hardened criminal.

19. The proposed legislation, clearly defined and classified offences as petty, serious and
heinous, and defined differentiated processes for each category

The Draconian side of the Act:

With reference to the aforementioned analysis it can be understood that many aspects of the
provisions of this Act are unsettling and worrisome; one of them being the fact that more
juveniles will be incarcerated as it is seen that the Act evidently promotes the adoption of a
retributive and punitive stance against them. The Act further recommends to adopt Judicial
Weaver to try Juvenile as an Adult in so called heinous crimes. The concept of judicial weaver
and provision for imprisonment is nothing but gross violation of international norms of human
rights. Under the newly amended law, adolescents alleged to have committed a heinous crime
will be confined to a “place of safety”, which is essentially a place of imprisonment, both during
the period of inquiry and after the conviction. A study of the juvenile homes in various parts of
the country done by Asian Centre for Human Rights and published in March 2013 found that the
‘inmates’ of these homes were housed in “inhuman conditions”. Disturbing incidents of sexual
abuse and assault, exploitation, and torture were documented during the study, irrespective of
whether the home was run by the government or private agencies. Perpetrators included
caretakers, cooks, other Class IV employees, directors, founders, senior inmates, etc. The United
States of America has for some time adopted laws that allow juveniles to be tried as adults. They
also have one of highest rates of juvenile incarceration among the developed countries. Research
in this population now suggests that alternatives other than incarceration are probably more
beneficial in the long run. Studies by Aizer and Doyle (2013) and Usher (2013)20 have shown
that juveniles who were incarcerated had higher rates of recidivism and poorer educational
attainments than juveniles who were not detained in correctional institutions. This Act has
further violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 15(3) of the
Constitution, and said that of the 472 million children of the country, only 1.2% have committed
crimes. And that, of these, only 2.17% had committed murder and 3.5% had committed rape.
Since the Act is now passed and has come into force has evidently jeopardised the other 99.98%
children in this country. Even countries such as the U.S. and U.K., which introduced the judicial
waiver to try juveniles as adults, have now accepted that they have been ineffective in addressing
juvenile crime rate, public safety and recidivism.According to the National Campaign to Reform
State Juvenile Justice Systems (U.S.), 80 per cent of the juveniles who are released from adult
prisons go on to commit more serious offences. It is now require to be decided whether this
nation wants juveniles to reform and rejoin society in a productive manner or become hardened
criminals themselves.4

CONCLUSION
For over a century, states have firmly believed on the notion that the juvenile justice system was
a weapon to protect the public by providing a system that responds to the criminal acts of
children who are maturing into adulthood. States recognize that children who commit crimes are
different from adults: as a class, they are less blameworthy, and they have a greater capacity for
transformation. To respond to these differences, states have established a separate judicial system
for juveniles, and they have created a separate, youth-based service delivery system that is
different than that provided to adults. It has seen that the countries with economies in transition
have witnessed a dramatic rise in delinquency rates. Most children and young people in conflict
with the law have committed minor crimes barring some exceptions. Reducing the age of

4
Law relating of juvenile justice in India
Juvenile in conflict with Law can never be the solution to the problem of Juvenile Delinquency.
Considering Nirbhaya Case as a whole and sole reason and also the moral foundation and
justification to reduce the age of Juvenile from 18 to 16 and thereby causing the Juvenile Justice
(care and protection) Act of 2000 to undergo the drastic and dramatic changes is nothing but a
pathetic exhibition of social prejudices by the central government. The demand to lower the age
of age of Juvenile to 16 was misinformed, emotive and motivated. It is nothing but a ploy to add
to already overwhelming powers of the state that it exercises over its citizens. The centre of
interest in juvenile court is always a juvenile and his welfare, and not the act or its consequences
which might have resulted in his or her being brought before the court. Juvenile justice system
needs to maintained rehabilitation as its primary goal and should clearly distinguish itself from
the criminal justice system. Hence, instead of reducing the age, an attempt should have been
made to remove the very root cause of the problem i.e. mould our juveniles in such a way and
provide them with such a socio-psychological-emotional atmosphere and support that they don’t
commit crime at the very first step itself. We should not forget that the essence of the Juvenile
Justice System should be “restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and
reintegration of children in conflict with law into the mainstream society.” It is pertinent to
understand that Juveniles need reforms, not prison. The new Amendment in Juvenile Justice Act
will throw open the gate for frivolous FIRs. The Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 was comprehensive
and if would have been implemented honestly could have curbed incidents like Delhi gang rape
by providing timely help and necessary support to juveniles who might turn into hardened
criminals. The problem is not with the act but with its implementation. The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection) Act, 2000 was a progressive piece of legislation with its heart in the right
place. The need of an hour is to fix the systemic problems and strengthen the existing juvenile
justice system such that it can fulfil its objectives to reform and rehabilitate the young people
who need it the most.

History, from time to time has witnessed that the sole measure of stipulating stringent laws
would only promote hatred and injustice. Law can never be the solution. Law can only
supplement the solution. Therefore, the time has come to adopt a flexible, novel approach to
tackle the problem of Juvenile Delinquency, an approach- full of love, compassion,
understanding, values and last but not the least- the JUSTICE.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Implementation of Juvenile Justice Act should be made heavily. Act without hands willingto
implement it is ineffective and dangerous. Therefore, the Government should see that the Act is
properly implemented by the authorities.

2. India should not have common Juvenile age for every crime. The system can be made on the
lines of USA, UK and France to categorize and divide Juvenile Justice System into different age
groups.

3. Case of Juvenile should not be transferred to the Adult Court.

4. Every Juvenile Justice Board should work with local child welfare organizations to improve
their effectiveness in providing abused and neglected children with safe shelters.

5. Members of Juvenile Justice Board should advocate for adequate court resources and
community systems to respond promptly and appropriately.

6. All members serving in a juvenile justice board or juvenile court should be required to have
intensive and ongoing training not only in the statutory and case law governing delinquency but
also in child development, socio-cultural factors, resources for families, the Board’s relationship
with and duties toward social welfare agencies, and research findings regarding rehabilitative
interventions.

7. The age with reference to Juvenile should not be reduced at all, because it will have far
fetching impact on Criminal Justice system in India which will be detrimental to the growth of
Justice and Equity.

8. Ensuring and enhancing the quality of the process of the juvenile correctional services would
bring about justice to juveniles in conflict with the laws.

9. Possibility of creating Non-Judicial Juvenile Justice System should be examined.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK NAME AUTHOR PUBLICATIONS

1. Children in India and their rights Bhakhry, S National Human Rights

Commission, New Delhi.

2. Delinquency, development, and social policy Brandt, D Yale University Press

3. Law relating of juvenile justice in India Choudhary, R. Orient Publishers

4. Police and delinquency in India. Vadackumchery, J. APH Pub. Co.

5. Juvenile Justice: An Indian Scenario Bhattacharya, S Regency Publications.