Juvenile offences emphasized reformative justice


Author : Naina Kanwar Shekhawat, Army Law College Pune

To be Brief :

Juvenile offences—illegal acts by people generally below the age of 18—are dealt with in a legal system that emphasizes reform rather than retribution. Contrary to adult criminal justice systems, juvenile justice is informed by the philosophy that young offenders are not irredeemable but have the capacity for correction and rehabilitation.
Reformative justice seeks not only to punish, but to educate, rehabilitate, and reintegrate youths back into society. Such a system acknowledges the developmental differences between juveniles and adults, that children are more vulnerable to peer pressure, impulsivity, and a lack of forethought. These are premises backed by neuroscience and psychology, which emphasize the moral and legal case for a system that is specifically designed to meet their needs.
Courts tend to resort to non-custodial alternatives like community service, counselling, probation, or restorative justice schemes. These responses promote accountability and attempt to tackle the root cause of behaviour—whether trauma, neglect, or social deprivation—reducing recidivism in the process.
Though major or violent crimes can still receive harsher treatment, even in these instances, the focus is on procuring procedural fairness, legal aid access, and educational or psychological care.
Essentially, a reformative juvenile justice system weighs public safety against faith in the possibility of a youth to change, affirming the concept that children who are in conflict with the law remain children first, and offenders secondarily.

Nothing But Law Language


Domain of youth justice, crimes of children—persons usually below the age of majority (usually 18)—are tried under a separate system of law that takes into consideration their stage of development and ability for rehabilitation. They are defined as Children in Conflict with the Law (CCL) by most national and international laws, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Major legal documents, like the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, mandate non-custodial options and emphasize diversionary methods. These are bail with or without surety, supervised probation, community-based rehabilitation, and individual care plans, which are designed to prevent institutionalization unless absolutely unavoidable. Even where there are gruesome offences, safeguards like pre-trial scrutiny (to identify mental and physical ability, appreciation of consequences, and facts of the offence) prevent juveniles from being sent straight to adult courts without proper inquiry. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which consists of a magistrate and two social workers, takes a child-friendly judicial approach while protecting the right of the minor to legal counsel, privacy, and non-stigmatisation. Overall, juvenile crimes are handled in a justice system that acknowledges that children, because of their age, susceptibility, and malleability, need to be treated with compassion, regard, and constitutional safeguard. The model of reformative justice, grounded in both legal precept and humanity, aims not to condemn but to direct, allowing young offenders an avenue towards wholesome rehabilitation and not lifetime exclusion.

The Proof :



Juvenile offences, committed by individuals below the age of 18—legally termed as “children in conflict with the law”—are addressed under a distinct legal framework that prioritises reformative justice over punitive measures. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in India, concurring with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), enshrines that the aim of juvenile justice is neither retribution but rehabilitation, reintegration, and social reformation. The Act categorizes offenses as petty, serious, and heinous, depending on the age and mental fitness of the child along with procedural protection and specific response accordingly (Section 2 and Section 15). One of the main principles under Section 3 is the “principle of best interest” that requires all decisions to be made with the aim of the best interests of the child and its future development. The law also encompasses non-custodial interventions like probation, counselling, and community service, as suggested in international standards such as the Beijing Rules (1985) and Riyadh Guidelines (1990). The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB, 2022) states that most juvenile offenses are non-violent and result from situations such as poverty, neglect, or peer pressure. Hence, putting children behind bars can result in increased marginalisation and recidivism. Rather, bodies such as the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and Child Welfare Committees are mandated to follow a child-sensitive, rights-oriented approach. As believed by the Supreme Court in Eera v. State (2017), the determination of juvenility should be with due respect for the psychological and emotional maturity of the child. Finally, reformative justice understands that children are developing morally and cognitively and thus must be given a chance to learn, develop, and reintegrate into society with dignity instead of being condemned for youthful errors.

Abstract:



Juvenile offenses are crimes committed by people below the age of 18 years. The justice system handles such cases differently compared to adult offenses, with the aim of reformative justice instead of punishment. This implies that the aim is to reform the youth, educate them on the implications of their actions, and reintegrate them into society as mature individuals.
Rather than using punitive measures, the law tends to emphasize care, counseling, education, and skill training. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 of India, for instance, provides for a more sensitive treatment but with accountability, particularly in grave cases of older juveniles (16–18 years). The idea is straightforward: the child is still developing and can be reformed. Society, courts, and guardians have to cooperate with each other to guide rather than punish them and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to repair and construct a better tomorrow.

Case laws:
Mukesh & Anr. v. State of Delhi (Nirbhaya Case, 2017)
* Following the sentence of a juvenile in the Nirbhaya case, India overhauled its Juvenile Justice system. Today, 16–18-year-olds accused in heinous offences can be refused reform-home placement.
* Enhanced accountability—but always with safeguards to ensure juvenile rights.

Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013)
* Retained the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act provisions and confirmed no capital/life sentence for juveniles. Enforced legal aid access at every stage.
* Assures justice and well-spacious dignified defense even for accused serious offenders.

Sheela Barse & Ors. v. Union of India (1986)
* Stood by the proposition that children below 16 years should never be detained with adults, and their cases should be expedited—investigation within 3 months and trial within 6. It mandated the provision of legal aid, Juvenile Justice Board facilities, frequent inspections, and granting of bail in the lack of proper juvenile homes.
* Emphasized dignity, protection, and timely redress for vulnerable children, dealing with them as children in need, not criminals.

Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005)
* Confirmed juvenility on the basis of age at offence, rather than arrest or trial.
* Bars youngsters from being deprived of protection because of delay in procedure.

Conclusion


India’s juvenile justice jurisprudence always sends one message “Young offenders need protection, guidance, and a fair opportunity to reform—not punishment.” There is certainly accountability for serious offenses, particularly among children between 16–18 years of age, but courts and systems demand child-friendly environments, speedy due process, prioritized legal assistance, and rehabilitation rather than retribution. What is aimed for is healing, not harming, so children can become responsible adults. Courts always favor welfare, dignity, education, and social reintegration—even for severe offenses. Prioritizes non-custodial sanctions—counselling, probation, community service, short-term institutionalization Age, maturity, context of offence, and social circumstances shape trial path and sentencing. Separate institutions, JJB infrastructure, speedy trials, legal assistance, and procedural sensitivity are enforced by statute and precedent. Reformative justice is a statutory requirement in Indian law, not merely an ethical principle. The JJ Act, Constitution (Article 15(3), Article 39(e) & (f)), and international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child oblige courts, police, and the state to treat juvenile offenders with compassion, care, and procedural justice.


FAQS


Who qualifies as a “juvenile” under Indian law?
Any person under the age of 18 at the time of the offence (Section 2(35), JJ Act, 2015). The age must be assessed as of the date of the offence, as per Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005).If you’re under 18, you’re seen by law as someone who still needs guidance, not just punishment


2. Can juveniles be tried as adults?
Yes, but only in atrocious offences and only if the child is between 16 to 18 years. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) makes a preliminary determination of mental and physical ability, comprehension of the consequences, and conditions before making a decision. (Section 15, JJ Act, 2015). Only in extremely grave offences—and only after a proper scrutiny of the maturity of the child—are they tried as an adult. Even then, child protection norms are followed.

3. Provide some examples of reformative measures applied in place of punishment.
Some of the reformative strategies used are:
* Community service
* Counselling and psychological guidance
* Supervision and probation
* Vocational training and education
* Special Home or Observation Home (max. 3 years)Rather than imprisoning a child, the system works towards making him learn, heal and reform.

4. What does the role of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) involve?
The JJB is a quasi-judicial court that takes up cases of juveniles in conflict with the law. It evaluates each case and determines whether the child should be prosecuted under juvenile or adult procedures (if any). The JJB is a child-sensitive court which hears with greater care than fear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *