The Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) pertains to provisions for children found in conflict with the law in India.

It
also gives provisions for children in need of care and protection.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2018 had been introduced in the
Lok Sabha. Its aim is towards the amendment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2015

Salient Provisions of the JJA, 2015

Juvenile Justice Act Features

Who is a Juvenile?

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Positives

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Negatives

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2015

Salient Provisions of the JJA, 2015

The JJA, 2015 replaced the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

Given below are a few salient points about the Juvenile Justice Act:

Enactment Date: December 31, 2015

Short Title: The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Long Title: An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to children alleged and found to be in
conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through
proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly
approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their
rehabilitation through processes provided, and institutions and bodies established, herein under and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Ministry: Ministry of Women and Child Development

Enforcement Date: January 15, 2016[Source: indiacode.nic.in]

Reasons for amending the 2000 Act:

The government amended the existing law dealing with children in conflict with the law citing
implementational issues and procedural delays with adoption, etc.

The government also cited figures from the National Crime Records Bureau to show that there had been
a hike in the number of juveniles committing crimes, particularly in the age bracket of 16 to 18 years.

In the 2000 Act, there was no distinction between children in conflict with the law and children in need
of care and protection. The amended act changed that.

The 2000 Act also did not have provisions for the reporting of abandoned or lost children to the
appropriate authorities, in order to ensure their protection and care.

The amendment in the 2000 law came about because of public outrage at the infamous Delhi gang-rape
case (Nirbhaya Case) in 2012. One of the offenders in the case was a 17-year-old.

The legislation strives to achieve a balance between child rights and justice by not sentencing juveniles
to the death sentence and life imprisonment.

History of Legislation concerning Children in Conflict with the Law

The Apprentices Act, 1850, was the first law enacted in India dealing with children in conflict with the
law. This law allowed the courts to treat children who had committed petty crimes as apprentices
instead of sending them to prisons.

The second law that dealt with juvenile offenders was the Reformatory Schools Act, 1876.

The Indian Jails Committee (1919-20) also made some recommendations with regard to children in
conflict with the law.

In 1960, the Children Act was passed to provide for the care, maintenance, protection, welfare,
education, training, trial and rehabilitation of neglected and delinquent children.

The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: This was the first central law on juvenile justice that provided a uniform
law for the whole country in this respect.
In 1992, the government of India ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
which made it expedient to have a law that conformed to the standards of the Convention.

Hence, the JJA, 1986 was repealed and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
was enacted.

Juvenile Justice Act Features

The JJA, 2015 introduced many changes to the existing law based on the requirements of the day in
terms of reforming the laws and making the juvenile justice system more responsive to the changing
circumstances of society. The Act seeks to hold the child accused of crime accountable, not through
punishments, but through counselling.

The Act amended in 2015 changed the nomenclature of ‘juvenile’ to ‘child’ and ‘child in conflict with the
law’.

The Act defines orphaned, surrendered and abandoned children.

It also gives definitions for petty, serious and heinous crimes by children.

A heinous offence is one that attracts a maximum punishment of 7 years’ imprisonment under any
existing law.

A serious offence is one that attracts imprisonment of 3 to 7 years.

A petty offence is one that attracts a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment.

The Act gives more clarity on the functions and powers of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Child
Welfare Commission.

Juvenile Justice Board:

This is a judiciary body before which children detained or accused of a crime are brought.

This acts as a separate court for juveniles since they are not to be taken to a regular criminal court.

The Board comprises of a judicial magistrate of the first class and two social workers, one of whom at
least should be a woman.

The Board is meant to be a child-friendly place and not intimidating for the child.

Child Welfare Committee:

The State Governments set up these committees in districts in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The Committees have the power to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development
and rehabilitation of the children in need of care and protection, as well as to provide for their basic
needs and protection.

The Act provides for an efficient and organized system for the adoption of orphaned, surrendered and
abandoned children.

It also makes it compulsory for all child care institutions to be registered.

An important provision of the amended Act is that it provides for minors in the age group 16 – 18 years
to be treated as adults in the case of heinous crimes.

The Act also gives the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) statutory status.

The Act distinguishes between children in conflict with the law and children in need of care and
protection.

Under the previous Act, any minor, regardless of the crime committed, could be convicted only to a
maximum of 3 years. Under no circumstances could the minor be tried in an adult court or sent to an
adult jail, or given a penalty longer than 3 years. However, this changed with the 2015 amendment. All
children below the age of 18 would be treated equally except for one departure from the norm. That is,
in the case of heinous crimes. Any minor of the age group 16 – 18 and who has been accused of
committing a heinous crime can be tried like an adult. For this, the Juvenile Justice Board would assess
the child’s physical and mental capacities, his/her ability to comprehend the consequences of the crime,
etc. and determine whether the child can be treated as an adult.

Given below are links to other important Acts, policies, organisations and initiatives taken for the
welfare of children. UPSC aspirants can refer to the links below for exam preparation:

Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act

The POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

National Child Labour Project Scheme National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)

Who is a Juvenile?

As per law, a juvenile is any individual below the age of 18.

According to laws in India, any child below the age of 7 cannot be convicted under any law for any
crime.
Under earlier laws, the distinction between children in conflict with the law and children in need of care
and protection was vague, as both were termed juveniles.

In the amended law (2015 Act), the terms are ‘children in conflict with the law’ and ‘children in need of
care and protection’; so that the distinction is clear.

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Positives

There are many positives in the 2015 JJA. It was enacted to correct the deficiencies in the previous
legislation. Some of the important benefits of this Act are:

There is a clear distinction between children in conflict with the law and children in need of protection
and care.

It makes the registration of all children’s homes mandatory, bringing in more transparency and
efficiency in the system.

It seeks to reduce crimes committed by children between the ages of 16 and 18.

By including the provision for 16 to 18 year-olds to be tried like adults in case of heinous crimes, it
provides justice to the victims of such crimes.

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Negatives

The amended JJA also has certain negatives associated with it. Some of the problems in the law are
discussed below.

Many psychological studies point out the vulnerability of the 16 – 18 age group children because of
hormonal and physical changes. Considering offences committed in this age as crimes and putting them
in adult jails can cause further damage. In such environs, the minor will come into close contact with
professional criminals, which can hamper their rehabilitation.

Some opine that the treating of minors between 16 and 18 years differently is a violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to equality.
India ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992. According to this Convention, any
individual below the age of 18 is to be treated like a child. This is in contravention to the amended law
that gives provisions for treating 16 – 18 year-olds like adults.

A psychological assessment is to be made to assess whether the minor can be treated as an adult or not.
However, this can be subjective and not entirely scientific.

The argument to include 16 – 18-year-old minors in a special bracket was based on the data from the
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). This data is itself questioned by many, and also, many of the
cases were in the FIR stage and under preliminary proceedings only.

Most children who commit crimes are from the economically weaker sections of society. In order to
reduce crime among children, there is a need to provide a better environment for the nurture of
children who grow up in slum areas. Also, there is a need to foster a culture of open communication
between parents and children among all classes.

Prevention is better than cure. There is a need to ensure that children do not turn to crime at all, in the
first place. Also, minors who do get into crime should be held accountable depending on the
circumstances. Rehabilitation is of utmost importance to avoid children in conflict with the law from
becoming future liabilities for society.

Landmark Judgments

1. Sheela Barse & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors

3. Sheela Barse & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

4. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

5. Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

6. Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P.

7. Sampurna Behura v. Union of India & Ors.

8. Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal

9. Anjum Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra

11. Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India & Ors

12. Dr.Subramanian Swamy & Ors. v. Raju Thr. Member Juvenile Justice Board & Anr

13. Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian - Smt. Rajni Bhati versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

. Key Takeaways

Juvenility of a person in conflict with the law has to be reckoned from the date of the offence and not
from the date on which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.

JJ Act is a beneficial legislation and a technical plea (like delay in making the claim of juvenility) would
not disable a person from making a claim under the Act.

The claim of juvenility can be raised even after the final disposal of a case. It can be taken up at any
stage and any delay in making such a claim cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim.

Courts must not adopt a hyper-technical approach while dealing with the plea of juvenility.

Introduction

Society must be aware and vigilant about the protection of its children because children are the future
of the country and ignoring them could have serious consequences. The Legislature of our country has
enacted several Statutes to deal with the Children in Conflict with the law and to provide protection to
vulnerable children. Through the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, India has
also provided a secular law for the Adoption of Children. In this article, I will discuss the landmark
judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,on the subject of Juvenile Justice and the Protection
of Children.

Landmark Judgments

1. Sheela Barse & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [1986 AIR 1773]

This petition was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court for getting directions regarding the release of
children, below 16 years of age, from jails. The petitioners also prayed for the production of complete
information about children in jails, and the existence of juvenile courts, homes, and schools in the
country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, acting on the petition, directed: State Legal Aid & Advice Board to
send two lawyers to each jail within the State once a week to provide legal assistance to children (below
16 years of age), who are detained in prisons. All State Governments to report the number of children's
homes, remand homes & observation homes for children in their States, and the number of inmates in
each of those institutions. States to properly enforce the ‘Children’s Act’ enacted by them. They must
file affidavits to show cause why they are not implementing those Acts. District and Sessions Judges
tomake regular visits to the District Jails and to take particular care of child prisoners.

2. Sheela Barse & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1986 SCALE (2) 230]

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme gave the following directions relating to juveniles: In cases,where a
child has been accused of an offence that is punishable with imprisonment of fewer than 7 years, the
investigation must be completed within 3 months from the lodging of the FIR and the trial must be
completed within 6 months from the filing of the charge sheet. Children must not be lodged in jails
under any circumstance. Remand and observation homes must be set up by the State Governments. If
there is no accommodation in these remand or observation homes, then the children should be released
on bail. To ensure complete uniformity, the Union Government should enact a Children’s Act for the trial
of children below 16 years of age and ensure rehabilitation of such children.

3. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the juvenility of a person in conflict with the law has to
be reckoned from the date of the offence and not from the date on which cognizance was taken by the
Magistrate.

4. Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2009 SCC 13 211]

Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the upper age limit for male children to be considered juveniles
was 16 years. But, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“JJ Act, 2000”) treats
children up to 18 years as juveniles. So, the primary issue before the court, in this case, was, whether JJ
Act, 2000 applies to offences that have been committed before the coming into force of the JJ Act, 2000.
The court held that upon conjoint reading of Sections 2 (k), 2 (l), 7A, 20, and 49, it is made clear that all
the persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of the commission of the offence even
before the enforcement of JJ Act, 2000, would be treated as juveniles. It would be immaterial that the
claim of juvenility was raised after the accused attained the age of 18 years.

5. Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. [Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2003]

In this case, the court held that anyone claiming to be a minor on the date of an offence should make
such a claim at the earliest available opportunity before the Trial Court or the High Court. But, if no such
claim is made for some reason, then that does not disentitle a person from raising such a claim before
the Supreme Court. JJ Act is a beneficial legislation and a technical plea (like delay in making the claim of
juvenility) would not disable a person from making a claim under the Act. But, the burden of proof, for
making out a prima facie case for directing an inquiry into the plea of juvenility, rests on the person who
makes such a claim.

6. Sampurna Behura v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 of 2005]

This case was primarily related to the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000, and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act, 2015”). The
court observed that the children are the future of our country and they must be looked after. So, it
issued several directions to ensure proper implementation of the JJ Act, 2015: Central and State
Governments must ensure that all the vacancies in the National Commission for Protection of Child
Rights (NCPCR) and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR) are filled for the effective
functioning of these statutory bodies. State-Level Child Protection Societies and District Level Child
Protection Units should take assistance from NGOs and civil society for proper implementation of the JJ
Act. State Government must ensure the filling up of all the positions in the Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs)
and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs). JJBs and CWCs must have regular sittings to ensure that there is
no backlog of inquiries and children in need of care & protection are being taken care of. National &
State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights must take up studies on various societal issues so that
the State Government can take remedial steps on those issues. State Governments must appoint the
necessary number of Probation Officers for the effective implementation of the JJ Act, after getting
reports from the NCPCR and SCPCRs. Special Juvenile Police Units must be set up so that the police can
effectively fulfill their role as the first responder on issues arising out of offences committed by or
against children. National & State Police Academies must consider including the topics related to child
rights in their curriculum. State Governments were advised to ensure that all the Child Care Institutions
(CCIs) are registered so that the issues of missing children & trafficking are addressed. Eminent Persons
from civil society must be appointed as Visitors by State & UT Governments to monitor & supervise the
CCIs. Members of the Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Protection Societies, District Child Protection Units,
and Special Juvenile Police Units must be given adequate training and sensitization for the proper
implementation of the JJ Act. All the Chief Justices of the High Courtswere urged to consider establishing
child-friendly courts & vulnerable witness courts in each district to deal with inquiries under the JJ Act
and trials under POCSO Act, etc.

7. Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2006]

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme held that: The claim of juvenility can be raised even after the final
disposal of a case. It can be taken up at any stage and any delay in making such a claim cannot be a
ground for rejection of such claim. The burden of proof for making a prima facie case supporting the
claim of juvenility rests upon the person making the claim. Production of any of the documents referred
to in Rule 12 (3) (a) (i) to (iii) ofJuvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007,will be
sufficient proof to initiate an inquiry regarding the claim of juvenility. Affidavit of the claimant in support
of the claim of juvenility, filed for the first time in the appellate court,shall not be sufficient to discharge
the burden of proof for initiating an inquiry regarding the claim. The courts must not adopt a hyper-
technical approach while dealing with the plea of juvenility. Frivolous claims of juvenility must be
rejected.

8. Anjum Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra, Through STF, CBI Mumbai [Criminal Appeal No.
1178 of 2007]

In this case, one of the primary issues before the Court was, whether the JJ Act of 2000 prevails over
TADA Act, 1987. Both these statutes provide that they will have an overriding effect over any other law
in force.The Hon’ble Supreme court observed that the JJ Act aimed to have an overriding effect over
laws that were in force on the date of its enactment. TADA had been repealed long back and was not in
force when the non-obstante clause was added to the JJ Act. So, the court held that the JJ Act, 2000
would not have an overriding effect on TADA.

9. Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal no. 1209 of 2010]

In this case, the court held that for the determination of the age of a minor, a reference must be made
to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Furthermore, it observed
that even though the procedure mentioned under the aforesaid rule is meant only to determine the age
of a child in conflict with the law, it can even be used for determining the age of a child who is a victim
of a crime.

10. Salil Bali v. Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2013]

In this case, the petitioners had prayed the court to strike down the provisions of Section 2 (k) of the JJ
Act, 2000. This section definesa Juvenile/Child, as a person who has not completed the age of 18 years.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the rationale behind the said age limit and observed that the age
of 18 had been fixed based on the understanding of experts in child psychology and behavioral patterns.
So, the court dismissed the appeals by noting that no interference was necessary with the provisions of
the JJ Act, 2000 till sufficient data is available. 11. Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 470 of 2005]

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that due to conflicting viewpoints prevailing between
different communities in the country, it was not an appropriate time to declare the right to adopt and
the right to be adopted as fundamental rights encompassed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

12. Dr.Subramanian Swamy & Ors. v. Raju Thr. Member Juvenile Justice Board & Anr. [Criminal Appeal
No. 695 of 2014]
In this case, the appellant contended that the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000 (specifically, Sections 1 (4), 2
(k), 2 (l), and 7) must be read down to mean that juveniles who are mature enough to understand the
consequences of their acts and who commit heinous crimes, must not come under the provisions of the
JJ Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that ‘reading down’ the provisions of an Act cannot be
resorted to when the meaning of those provisions is plain & clear. There is no difficulty in understanding
the meaning of the provisions of the JJ Act. The Act has put all persons below the age of 18 in one
class/ground to provide a separate scheme of investigation, trial, and punishment for offences
committed by them. So, the court does not need to read down the provisions.

13. Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian - Smt. Rajni Bhati versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2016)

In this case, the court held that where any of thedocuments mentioned in Rule 12 (3) (a) (i) to (iii) of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 are submitted in support of the claim of
juvenility, then that must be considered to be conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. But, if
there is a doubt and the accused is taking a contradictory stand, then the court could order an inquiry
for the determination of the age of the accused. Such inquiry could include a medical examination.
Conclusion The Hon’ble Supreme Court has delivered a catena of judgments on the subject of Juvenile
Justice and Child Rights, interpreting and moulding the law of the land in favour of the Children in
Conflict with Law.The Legislature has also done a commendable job by standardizing the law on this
subject. Now, the primary task in front of us is to ensure the proper implementation of the law that has
been laid down by the courts and the legislature. After all, as Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt said in
one of his addresses, the true equity, and justice of the society is how fairly it treats its children.