Author: Sorvi Mahajan, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS)
To the point
Juvenile justice system is specially designed to deal with the young people under the age of 18, who have been accused of committing crimes or are in the need of care and protection. It strongly emphasizes on rehabilitation, protection and reintegration of children into the society, recognizing the fact that children are still developing and may not have the same level of judgment as adults. This article evaluates the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system in rehabilitating young offenders considering both legal and practical perspective. The article aims to assess whether the system successfully fulfils its rehabilitative and protective goals.
Abstract
The juvenile justice recognize juvenile as the one’s who are still undergoing crucial emotional, intellectual and social development stages. Rehabilitating juvenile offenders and deterring future criminal activity are the two primary objectives of juvenile justice with the intention is to assist juvenile offenders in becoming contributing members of society rather than to penalize them. This article explores the effectiveness of the laws related to the juvenile justice system in India. If a youth case to be considered successful, it must be possible for the young person to grow from the experience without experiencing the extreme conditions of adult prison, change their future course of action and decisions, and avoid future interactions with the juvenile or criminal justice systems.
Use of legal jargon
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the principal statute governing juvenile justice, embodies the principle of doli incapax, presuming that children lack the requisite mens rea to commit crimes as adults do. The Act mandates that juveniles in conflict with the law are to be adjudicated by Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs), which function with an informal, non-adversarial procedure. The system also incorporates the principle of benefit of doubt and allows for claims of juvenility to be raised at any stage of proceedings, as affirmed in various Supreme Court judgments.
However, the system faces criticism regarding its deterrent capacity, especially following the 2015 amendment, which permits juveniles aged 16-18 to be tried as adults for heinous offences. This shift introduces a quasi-adult criminal liability, potentially undermining the rehabilitative ethos for this age group. Judicial pronouncements such as Salil Bali v. Union of India and Satya Deo v. State of Uttar Pradesh have reinforced the constitutional validity of the Act’s child-centric approach and the necessity of treating juveniles under 18 as a distinct category, even for offences predating legislative changes.
The proof
The juvenile justice system in India has undergone significant changes over the years, reflecting a deeper understanding of the unique needs of young offenders. The journey began with the establishment of the first juvenile court in Bombay in 1920 under the Children Act, which recognized the importance of special protection for those under 16. This was followed by the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986, which replaced the earlier law and emphasized care and protection for juveniles in conflict with the law, introducing Juvenile Welfare Boards and observation homes.
A major amendment in 2000 raised the age limit for juvenile offenders to 18, aligning with international standards. However, a subsequent amendment allowed juveniles aged 16 to 18 to be tried as adults for heinous crimes such as rape and murder. Despite these changes, the core principle of rehabilitation and reintegration remains central for most offenses. While the juvenile justice system aims to reduce crime rates through these reforms, there has been a concerning rise in juvenile crime, particularly in cases involving violent offenses.
Case laws
Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986)
This landmark Supreme Court case was pivotal in shaping India’s juvenile justice system. The Court condemned the detention of children under 16 in jails, emphasizing the harmful impact on their development. Key directives included appointing legal aid lawyers for child prisoners, mandatory inspections of juvenile institutions, and strict timelines for juvenile cases. The Court also recommended a dedicated Children’s Act to ensure uniform juvenile trials. This judgment established the need for a child-centric, rehabilitative approach, focusing on humane treatment, legal support, and speedy justice for young offenders.
Nirbhaya gang rape case 2012
The Nirbhaya case refers to the horrific gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old physiotherapy student in Delhi on December 16, 2012 who was brutally assaulted by six men on a moving bus, suffering fatal injuries that led to her death in a Singapore hospital days later. The brutality of the crime shocked the nation and sparked massive protests across India, demanding justice and better protection for women. The incident led to the arrest of all six accused: four were sentenced to death and executed in March 2020, one died in jail, and the juvenile offender was released after serving three years in a reform facility, as per the law at that time. The case galvanized public opinion, led to significant legal reforms including stricter anti-rape laws, and remains a symbol of the fight against gender-based violence in India.
Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2005/2018)
This case addressed systemic failures in implementing juvenile justice legislation. The Supreme Court directed central and state governments to fill vacancies in statutory bodies, ensure regular sittings of Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees, and improve conditions in child care institutions. The judgment reinforced the need for coordinated, effective, and child-centric implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Conclusion
The juvenile justice system in India is grounded in the belief that young offenders, due to their ongoing emotional and psychological development, deserve a chance at rehabilitation rather than mere punishment. The legal framework, particularly the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizes a child-centric approach, focusing on reform, education, and reintegration into society. Landmark judicial decisions have further reinforced the need for humane treatment, speedy justice, and effective institutional care for juveniles in conflict with the law.
However, despite these progressive intentions, the effectiveness of the system is often undermined by challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, lack of trained personnel, and societal stigma. The 2015 amendment allowing certain juveniles to be tried as adults has also sparked debate about balancing rehabilitation with accountability. Ultimately, while the juvenile justice system has made significant strides in protecting and rehabilitating young offenders, continuous efforts are needed to strengthen implementation, improve support systems, and foster greater societal acceptance to truly fulfill its rehabilitative mandate.
FAQS
Who is a juvenile under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?
A juvenile is a person who has not yet reached the age of 18 years and is therefore considered a minor under the law, especially in the context of criminal justice. This distinction is recognized in both national and international laws, such as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in India, and is intended to protect the rights and future of young individuals who may come into conflict with the law.
Can juveniles be tried as adults in India?
Yes, under the 2015 amendment, juveniles aged 16-18 can be tried as adults for heinous offences, but only after a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board to determine their mental and physical capacity to commit such an offence.
How is the juvenile justice system different from the regular criminal justice system?
The juvenile justice system is child-centric, does not involve FIRs or chargesheets against juveniles, and focuses on reform rather than punishment. Juveniles are not sentenced to jail but may be sent to observation or special homes, and their cases are heard by Juvenile Justice Boards rather than regular courts.
What are the fundamental principles guiding the Juvenile Justice Act?
The Act is guided by principles such as the presumption of innocence, natural justice, best interest of the child, equality and non-discrimination, and the right to privacy and confidentiality
