5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Juvenile Justice System in India:

Comparative Analysis with USA, UK,
and South Africa
Author: [Student Name]
Department: [Department Name], [University Name]
Date: [Date]

Abstract

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 1/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

This comprehensive report examines India’s juvenile justice system and compares it with
those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa. It begins by defining key
concepts – such as “child in conflict with law” and “child in need of care” – under Indian law,
and outlines the welfare-based philosophy (reform and rehabilitation) embodied in the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The historical evolution of India’s
juvenile laws is traced from colonial-era statutes to the contemporary Act, highlighting major
reforms influenced by international standards (the UNCRC and Beijing Rules). The report
reviews the 2015 Act’s provisions: district-level Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child
Welfare Committees (CWCs) for separate handling of offenders and vulnerable children; age
classifications; emphasis on non-institutional care (foster care, adoption, sponsorship); and
special procedures for serious offences by 16–18-year-olds. Landmark Indian judicial
decisions are surveyed, showing how courts have reinforced the Act’s rehabilitative focus
(e.g. Gopalanachari Makkapati v. AP, Salil Bali v. Union of India, Jitendra Singh v. UP, IAHR v.
Bihar ijfmr.com ijfmr.com ijfmr.com ijfmr.com ). The institutional framework (JJBs, CWCs, probation
officers, NGOs, special juvenile police units) is detailed. A comparative analysis follows,
covering: the USA (where juveniles generally fall under state law, with constitutional rights
enshrined by In re Gault (1967); the Eighth Amendment forbidding juvenile executions in
Roper v. Simmons (2005) law.cornell.edu ; and the ban on mandatory life-without-parole in Miller
v. Alabama (2012) supreme.justia.com ; the UK (where age of criminal responsibility is just 10 gov.uk ,
children 10–17 are tried in youth courts with distinct sentencing guidelines); and South Africa
(Child Justice Act 2008: minimum age 10 with presumption of incapacity up to 14 loc.gov , no
imprisonment under 14 loc.gov , mandatory probation assessments loc.gov ). A comparative
table summarizes key points across jurisdictions. The report then identifies current
challenges in India’s system: unreliable age determination (often requiring invasive tests
when birth records are absent rsrr.in ), overcrowded and under-resourced homes (inspections
have found “massively overcrowded rooms, … regularized corporal punishment, [and]
malnourishment” bppj.studentorg.berkeley.edu ), delays, uneven state implementation, and societal
pressures (media sensationalism around juvenile crimes, exemplified by misleading NCRB
statistics imprintnews.org ). The roles of police (often untrained to handle children), the media
(tendency to fuel moral panic), and community attitudes are discussed. Rehabilitative
measures are surveyed: statutory provisions for counseling, education and vocational
training ijfmr.com ; non-institutional care (foster care, sponsorship, adoption) wcd.delhi.gov.in ; and
after-care programs. India’s international obligations are reviewed: ratification of the UNCRC
(child = under 18 imprintnews.org ) and adherence to UN standards (Beijing Rules, Riyadh
Guidelines) shaping its laws. Recent developments are noted: for instance, the 2021
Amendment Act (transferring adoption orders to District Magistrates and expanding “serious
offences” categories) en.wikipedia.org . The report concludes with observations that, despite
progressive laws, India’s juvenile system faces implementation gaps and must further align
with global best practices. Suggested reforms include improving age-verification methods,
expanding child welfare resources, raising the minimum responsibility age (as recommended
https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 2/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

by experts), and enhancing community-based prevention and rehabilitation.

Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations

Introduction to Juvenile Justice in India

Historical Background of Juvenile Justice in India

Overview of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Role of Judiciary: Landmark Judgments and Case Laws

Institutional Framework (JJBs, CWCs, NGOs)

Comparative Analysis

United States

United Kingdom

South Africa

Summary of Key Differences (Table)

Issues and Challenges in the Indian Juvenile Justice System

Role of Police, Media, and Society

Rehabilitative and Reformative Measures

International Conventions and India’s Obligations

Recent Developments and Amendments

Conclusion and Suggestions for Reform

Bibliography

Annexures

List of Abbreviations
Act – The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (India)

Art. – Article (of the Constitution of India)

CC – Child (in conflict with law)

CWC – Child Welfare Committee (district committee for children in need of care)

DNA – Deoxyribonucleic Acid (forensic age test)

ICPS – Integrated Child Protection Scheme (Government of India)

IPC – Indian Penal Code, 1860

JJB – Juvenile Justice Board (district board for juvenile offenders)

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 3/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Min. – Minister, Government of India (in press quotes)

NLU – National Law University

NCPCR – National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (India)

NGA – National Governors Association (US)

NCRB – National Crime Records Bureau (India)

OJJDP – Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (US Dept. of Justice)

SCR – Supreme Court Reporter (India)

SJPU – Special Juvenile Police Unit (local police unit for juveniles)

SJID – Scheduled Juvenile in Detention (term)

SJPU – Special Juvenile Police Unit (in police stations)

UK – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

UN – United Nations

UNCRC – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

UPA – Union Public Service Commission (India)

Introduction to Juvenile Justice in India

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 4/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

The Juvenile Justice System in India is a separate legal framework for dealing with children
and adolescents, distinct from the adult criminal justice system. Under the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a juvenile (or “child in conflict with law”) is
defined as any person who has not completed 18 years of age ijfmr.com . This follows India’s
constitutional and international commitments: Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution
explicitly empowers the state to make special provisions for children, and Articles 39(e)–(f) of
the Directive Principles urge the state to protect childhood and education. Importantly, India
is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified 1992), which regards
everyone under 18 as a child imprintnews.org . Consistent with these norms, the juvenile justice
system emphasizes rehabilitation and social reintegration rather than punishment ijfmr.com

imprintnews.org . The JJ Act’s guiding principles include the “best interests of the child” and the
presumption in favor of releasing a juvenile, aligning with international standards (the
UNCRC, the Beijing Rules). The law distinguishes two categories of children: those in conflict
with the law (juveniles accused of offences) and those in need of care and protection (e.g.
orphans, runaways, abused children). Juveniles accused of crimes are processed by a Juvenile
Justice Board (JJB), a tribunal of a judicial officer and two social workers, which determines
the nature of the offence and prescribes appropriate measures (often diversion or
rehabilitation programs) ijfmr.com . Children in need of care are handled by a Child Welfare
Committee (CWC), comprised of social workers, which takes custody and arranges care
(shelter, family placement or adoption) ijfmr.com . This separate structure reflects the system’s
core objective: to treat young offenders and vulnerable children as subjects of care rather
than criminals, aiming to address root causes and reintegrate them into society ijfmr.com

ijfmr.com .

Historical Background of Juvenile Justice in India

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 5/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

India’s separate treatment of juveniles has roots in the colonial era, but the modern system
evolved post-Independence. Early legislation showed a humanitarian impulse: for example,
the Apprentices Act of 1850 allowed apprenticeship rather than imprisonment for orphaned
children ijfmr.com , and the Bengal Children Act of 1891 (then part of British India) established
specialized juvenile courts and probation officers in Bengal ijfmr.com . However, these laws
were limited in scope and geography. After 1947, India framed a comprehensive child
welfare law: the Children Act, 1960, which provided for juvenile courts and probation in all
states, and aimed at “care, protection, and rehabilitation of children in conflict with the law”
ijfmr.com .

This 1960 Act was itself a precursor to a series of dedicated Juvenile Justice Acts. The Juvenile
Justice Act of 1986 (enacted on 22 August 1986) was India’s first nationwide juvenile-specific
statute, expressly drafted in line with the UN’s 1985 Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules) ijfmr.com . The 1986 Act introduced the
principle of treating juvenile offenders as individuals to be reformed and reintegrated,
reflecting a shift away from earlier punitive attitudes. It established institutional bodies (later
formalized as JJBs and CWCs) and emphasized child welfare.

By the 1990s, international pressure (notably India’s 1992 ratification of the UNCRC) and
domestic policy changes (India’s National Policy for Children) prompted further reform. The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 replaced the 1986 law. This 2000
Act (and its 2006 amendments) aligned India’s laws with the CRC: it expanded definitions
(e.g. explicitly including children “in need of care”), strengthened adoption and foster-care
provisions, and underscored the goal of rehabilitation. The 2000 Act also formally set 18 as
the threshold for defining a child ijfmr.com , consistent with global norms.

In 2015, in the wake of national debate (especially after a heinous crime by a juvenile in
2012), Parliament enacted a new Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The
2015 Act repealed the 2000 Act to create an updated, “child-friendly” regime ijfmr.com . It
retained the welfare ethos of past laws while introducing new features (e.g. regulatory
measures for “heinous offences” by older juveniles) which are examined below. In summary,
India’s juvenile justice system has evolved from scattered colonial-era ordinances to an
extensive statutory framework, progressively integrating constitutional values and
international standards ijfmr.com ijfmr.com .

Overview of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 6/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is India’s current law
governing minors. It provides a comprehensive framework for both children in conflict with
law (CICL) and children in need of care and protection (CNCP). Key features of the 2015 Act
include:

Definition of Juvenile: A “child” or “juvenile” is anyone under 18 years of age ijfmr.com .

This reflects India’s commitment (per the UNCRC) to treat all persons below 18 as
children. The Act thus covers persons aged 0–18, while penal provisions (IPC sections
82–83) separately address the very young.

Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs): Every district must have a JJB to deal with cases of CICL
ijfmr.com . A JJB consists of a Judicial Magistrate and two social workers (one woman) with
expertise in child psychology or welfare. The JJB conducts inquiries to determine
whether a child committed an offense, and if so, prescribes suitable orders (e.g. release
on probation, community service, or placement in a child care institution). The Board is
empowered to issue final orders (including release or rehabilitation plans) rather than
imposing traditional punishments.

Child Welfare Committees (CWCs): Each district also has a CWC (three members,
including at least one woman and child-development expert) to handle CNCP ijfmr.com .
CWCs receive and decide cases of abandoned, orphaned, or abused children; they may
order shelter in a children’s home, foster care placement, or adoption, as needed. CWCs
have powers similar to juvenile courts for protection cases (e.g. summoning parents,
providing social investigation reports).

Rehabilitation and Reintegration: A central goal of the Act is the social reintegration of
youth. It explicitly mandates measures such as counseling, education, vocational
training, therapy, and community service for juvenile offenders ijfmr.com . The Act requires
that institutional care (in observation or special homes) be accompanied by programs to
prepare the child for return to family or society, and that after-care (post-release
support) be provided.

Non-Institutional Care: To avoid unnecessary institutionalization, the law encourages

non-institutional options wherever appropriate ijfmr.com . These include foster care,
sponsorship programs, and adoption for eligible children. For CICL, the Board is
mandated to consider these alternatives instead of confinement; for CNCP, CWCs may
also place children in foster homes or grant adoption when possible. The goal is to
ensure children grow up in family-like settings rather than in long-term detention
facilities.

Confidentiality and Privacy: The Act strictly guards juveniles’ identities. Any information
or records of a child in conflict with law or in need of care must remain confidential
ijfmr.com . Courts and media are prohibited from publishing names or details that could
identify the child, to protect their future.
https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 7/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Special Provisions for Serious Offences: For the first time, the Act distinguishes among
offences by juveniles, based on gravity. It creates a category of “heinous offences”
(those punishable by ≥7 years under IPC) and mandates a preliminary assessment by
the JJB for any juvenile aged 16–18 accused of a heinous crime indiacode.nic.in . In such
cases, the Board evaluates the child’s mental and physical maturity and understanding
of consequences indiacode.nic.in . If the Board deems the child still in need of protection and
rehabilitation, the case proceeds under juvenile procedures; if not, the matter is
transferred to an adult court for trial (see Comparative section). Importantly, this judicial
waiver mechanism was introduced to address violent juvenile crime without completely
discarding the rehabilitative ethos.

Overall, the JJ Act 2015 lays down a detailed procedure: from the apprehension of an alleged
juvenile offender, to JJB inquiry, to final orders (including release or custody) ijfmr.com

indiacode.nic.in . It integrates care provisions (such as surrender and adoption for abandoned
children), probation, legal aid, and periodic review of cases. In sum, the Act claims to provide
“a protective and rehabilitative environment” while safeguarding children’s rights ijfmr.com .
The following sections assess how this framework has been interpreted and implemented.

Role of Judiciary: Landmark Judgments and Case Laws

Judicial decisions have significantly shaped the juvenile justice landscape in India, reinforcing
the Act’s rehabilitative objectives and resolving legal ambiguities. Key Supreme Court and
High Court cases include:

Gopalanachari Makkapati v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985): The Supreme Court

addressed the sentencing of a juvenile offender under the 1986 Act. It stressed that the
Juvenile Justice Act’s purpose is to reform and rehabilitate the child, not merely to
punish ijfmr.com . The Court held that in awarding any punishment, the JJB must consider
the juvenile’s age, character, and the circumstances of the offence ijfmr.com . The
emphasis should be on reintegrating the child into society rather than inflicting harsh
penalties ijfmr.com . This case underscored that the Act’s objective is a means to
rehabilitation, not an end.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 8/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Salil Bali v. Union of India (2009): This case challenged the constitutionality of the 2000
Act (especially the creation of JJBs and certain detention provisions). The Supreme Court
upheld the Act, affirming that JJBs and CWCs are necessary to protect juvenile rights
ijfmr.com . Importantly, the Court reiterated that the primary focus of the Act is
rehabilitation, not incarceration ijfmr.com . It held that detention of juvenile offenders must
be a last resort, with proper facilities for their care and education ijfmr.com . The Court also
mandated separation of juveniles from adults in all correctional facilities to prevent
exposure to negative influences ijfmr.com . By upholding the law, Salil Bali affirmed the
Act’s welfare objectives and invalidated any suggestion that juveniles be treated on par
with adults.

Jitendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008): This decision addressed age
determination. The Court held that if a person claims to be a juvenile, the trial must be
conducted by a duly constituted Medical Board to assess age scientifically ijfmr.com .
Crucially, age must be determined at the earliest opportunity (ideally at first hearing) so
that the accused is dealt with under the proper legal framework for juveniles ijfmr.com .
This ruling ensures that the benefit of juvenility is not denied due to delay or lack of
early examination.

International Association for Human Rights v. State of Bihar (2013): A Public Interest
Litigation raised the issue of poor conditions in juvenile homes. The Supreme Court took
suo motu cognizance of reports exposing substandard and abusive shelter homes
ijfmr.com . The Court ordered the state government to immediately improve living
conditions, hygiene, security, nutrition, and medical care in all observation and special
homes in Bihar ijfmr.com . It mandated regular inspections by independent bodies and
strict action against violators ijfmr.com . While not a judgment on substantive law, this case
reflects judicial activism in enforcing child welfare, recognizing that mere laws on paper
are insufficient without oversight.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 9/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Other notable Indian cases: The Supreme Court has also ruled on connected issues. For
example, Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2017) clarified that persons who were
juveniles at the time of offence but reach majority before trial can still claim juvenile status (a
“continuing” right). State of U.P. v. Mohit (2017) reaffirmed that the 2015 Act’s provisions on
raising juvenility can apply even after final judgment if the accused was a child when offence
occurred. These cases maintain the protective buffer around juveniles.

The judiciary abroad has likewise underscored juvenile protections. In the USA, landmark
cases include In re Gault (1967, US Supreme Court), which granted juveniles many
constitutional rights (counsel, confrontation, etc.), and Roper v. Simmons (2005), which held
that executing offenders for crimes committed under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment
law.cornell.edu . Miller v. Alabama (2012) ruled that mandatory life imprisonment without parole
for juveniles is unconstitutional supreme.justia.com . Additionally, J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011)
recognized that a child’s age must be considered in Miranda custody determinations
uscourts.gov . These cases illustrate how courts balance juvenile status with legal protections.
The comparative section will further explore how such jurisprudence contrasts with India’s
system.

Institutional Framework (JJBs, CWCs, NGOs)

India’s juvenile justice system operates through a network of statutory institutions,

supplemented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Key components include:

Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs): Constituted in every district by the District Magistrate, a
JJB is presided over by a Metropolitan/Magistrate of First Class (usually Principal
Magistrate) and assisted by two social workers (one female) ijfmr.com . Its exclusive
mandate is to handle cases of children accused of offences. The JJB follows a child-
friendly procedure: first production occurs within 24 hours of arrest, and the child is
often released on bail (or on personal bond) as a rule. The Board takes decisions in open
court (with separate arrangements for children, if needed) and issues orders that can
include admonition, probation, group counseling, community service, or placement in a
children’s home ijfmr.com . For heinous offences by 16–18 year olds, the Board conducts
the special preliminary assessment (as per Section 15) to determine whether the case
should be transferred for adult trial indiacode.nic.in . JJBs are also responsible for appointing
Probation Officers and Child Welfare Officers who assist in fact-finding and social
investigations.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 10/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Child Welfare Committees (CWCs): Also appointed by the state government and
constituted in each district, a CWC has three members with expertise in child welfare
ijfmr.com . CWCs deal with CNCP cases (abandoned, orphaned, surrendered, juvenile sex
abuse victims, etc.). When a vulnerable child is produced before the CWC, it conducts an
inquiry and may order the child’s custody in a government or NGO-run care facility, or
direct rehabilitation measures (such as foster care or adoption) ijfmr.com . CWCs also
monitor home conditions and can issue directives to government agencies for a child’s
care.

Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPUs): Each police station is to have one or more
designated officers trained in dealing with juveniles. SJPUs ensure that any child
apprehended is treated in accordance with the JJ Act – e.g. by sending the child only to
a JJB or CWC (not adult jail), and by promptly notifying the board/committee. They also
sensitize other officers to avoid violence or harassment of children. While the Act itself
mandates SJPUs, implementation varies widely by state.

Probation Officers and Child Welfare Officers: The Act envisions a cadre of specially
trained probation officers (often social workers) who prepare pre-sentencing reports for
the JJB indiacode.nic.in . These officers visit the child’s home, background, and community to
advise the Board on suitable dispositions. Similarly, Child Welfare Officers support CWCs
by tracing relatives, recommending foster families, or helping in reuniting children with
guardians.

Child Care Institutions (CCIs): Children ordered by JJBs or CWCs to be kept in custody
are placed in government-run or NGO-run institutions. There are several types:
Observation Homes (short-term holding for CICL during inquiry), Special Homes (for
CICL after conviction where stays may extend up to 3 years, focusing on education and
skill-building), Children’s Homes (for girls, usually CNCP category), Fit Facilities (for
children engaged in begging or other criminalized activities, or children with
developmental disabilities), etc. These CCIs must be registered under the Act and meet
prescribed standards (space, staff, education). In practice, NGOs and charities run many
CCIs under state oversight. These institutions are intended as corrective environments,
though as discussed below, their conditions have often been criticized.

Role of NGOs and Adoption Agencies: The JJ Act actively involves NGOs. State
adoption agencies and authorized NGOs operate foster care, sponsorship, and adoption
programs. Notably, the Act (with CARA rules) integrates adoption into the juvenile
justice framework: CWCs can declare orphaned/abandoned children legally free for
adoption, and authorised agencies (including children’s homes) place these children
with adoptive families under a regulated process wcd.delhi.gov.in . Aftercare organizations
(NGOs assisting released juveniles) are also part of the network.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 11/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

In summary, the law envisages a multi-layered system: child-friendly police, district

boards/committees, social workers, and supporting institutions, all working together to
rehabilitate juveniles. However, coordination challenges and resource gaps persist (see Issues
section).

Comparative Analysis

This section compares India’s juvenile justice system with those of two developed
democracies (USA and UK) and one developing country (South Africa), to highlight differing
approaches. A summary table follows.

United States

The U.S. lacks a single juvenile justice law at the federal level; each state has its own statutes
and systems. Generally, juveniles are under state juvenile justice codes until age 18 (after
which they are treated as adults). The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized juveniles’ due
process rights: In re Gault (1967) held that juveniles have rights to counsel, notice,
confrontation, and protection against self-incrimination, similar to adults jlc.org . Today,
delinquency is typically defined as a crime by someone under 18 (with some states allowing
juvenile jurisdiction to 16, 17 or older) jlc.org . The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (1974) is a federal law that provides incentives for states to deinstitutionalize
status offenders, separate juveniles from adult inmates, and address racial disparities.

The U.S. system is highly fragmented. The Harris County Juvenile

Justice Center (Texas) in the photo above is one of many dedicated
juvenile facilities. In principle, the U.S. system shares India’s
rehabilitative ideal. The Juvenile Law Center notes that “today’s
juvenile justice system still maintains rehabilitation as its primary
goal”, offering probation, counseling, and educational programs
jlc.org . Youth courts (often called family or juvenile courts) handle
cases in a non-adversarial style, and secure juvenile facilities focus on treatment.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 12/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

However, historically the U.S. has swung between leniency and harshness. From the 1960s–
1980s, focus on the “perpetrator’s background” and alternative programs grew, but rising
juvenile crime (and media “super-predator” panic) in the 1990s led many states to enact
tougher laws (lowering juvenile jurisdiction for serious crimes, imposing adult charges on 16–
17 year olds, and even training boot camps). Constitutional law now checks these excesses:
for example, the death penalty is forbidden for crimes committed under age 18 (Roper v.
Simmons, 2005) law.cornell.edu . Similarly, Miller v. Alabama (2012) held that mandatory life-
without-parole for juveniles is unconstitutional supreme.justia.com , because youth have greater
capacity for change. In J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court even held that
a child’s age matters when determining if a police interrogation is “custodial” for Miranda
warnings uscourts.gov . These rulings underscore the U.S. view that children’s immaturity
requires special legal treatment.

In practice, the U.S. system has many features not found in India: for instance, juvenile courts
often continue jurisdiction until age 21 for placement/follow-up; many states have youth-
specific sentencing guidelines; and there are extensive community-based diversion
programs. At the same time, like India, some serious juvenile offenders in the U.S. may be
certified to adult criminal court if they are over a certain age (often 16 or 17) and have
committed violent felonies.

United Kingdom

England and Wales (the UK has slightly different rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland) set
the age of criminal responsibility very low – 10 years old gov.uk , the lowest in Europe
theguardian.com . Children age 10–17 who commit offences fall under the youth justice system.
Police can arrest and caution such children, but must follow special protocols (e.g. youth
cautions, involvement of parents). Trials of 10–17 year olds occur in Youth Courts
(magistrates’ courts), which are closed to the public and have majority youth magistrates.
Sentencing is under the Youth Justice Act 1998 and subsequent guidelines; penalties include
referral orders (counseling contracts), community service (called youth rehabilitation orders),
detention in Secure Training Centres (for up to 24 months), etc. Importantly, children are not
given prison sentences like adults, but can be detained in youth facilities if deemed
necessary.

At age 18, individuals are automatically tried as adults in criminal courts, though transitional
sentencing provisions (e.g. the “young offender institution” for 18–20) exist. Notably, 16- and
17-year-olds in the UK historically could be tried in adult Crown Courts for indictable
offences, but this has been reformed: after the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, almost all
offences by under-18s remain in youth court, except murder or certain terrorism offences
which go to Crown Court.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 13/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Key differences with India: the UK’s minimum age (10) is far lower than India’s (7 under IPC)
or South Africa’s (10 presumption rule) or the typical U.S. state (usually 12–13). There is no
equivalent in UK law to trying a 16–17 year old as an adult for “heinous” crimes – 16-17 year
olds are considered children in the justice system (despite media outcry after some cases).
The UK also has “Youth Offending Teams” (multi-agency groups) providing social support to
child offenders, and strong legal aid for juveniles.

Aside from age, the UK aligns with India on principles of rehabilitation and confidentiality.
Recent guidance (2017 Sentencing Council) even expands “welfare” considerations in
sentencing youths. The UK judiciary has not had radical juvenile cases like the US Supreme
Court, but British courts have upheld the protective regime. Nonetheless, critics (and UN
committees) have called for raising England’s age of responsibility from 10 to at least 12 or
14 theguardian.com , as international peers recommend, due to concerns about criminalizing very
young children.

South Africa

South Africa offers an instructive contrast as a developing-country system inspired by both

rights-based values and resource constraints. The Child Justice Act, 2008 (effective April
2010) is South Africa’s key law. It raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 7 to
10 loc.gov , with a strong presumption that children 10–14 lack criminal capacity loc.gov (the
state must prove any 10–14 year old understood right vs wrong). Importantly, no child under
14 can be sent to prison under any circumstances loc.gov , and 14–16 year olds only if
conditions (e.g. serious offence, bail refused, threat to public) are met loc.gov . This “minimum
age” approach is similar to many European countries and higher than India’s effective
threshold (India has no minimum except IPC 7 years).

South Africa’s Act requires that every accused child undergo a probation assessment by a
trained officer loc.gov . The officer evaluates whether the child is in need of care and
protection (for diversion), or recommends appropriate sentencing. The Act is explicitly driven
by “restorative justice” ideals, emphasizing diversion, community involvement, and
psychological assessment. Violent juvenile offenders are subject to detention only as a last
resort and always under separate conditions from adults. Constitutional backing (the South
African Bill of Rights recognizes children’s rights explicitly) means juveniles also have basic
criminal procedure rights.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 14/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

A similarity with India is the dual-track approach: South Africa’s law (like India’s 2015 Act)
distinguishes “child in conflict with law” (to be dealt by a Juvenile Court and probation
officers) from “child in need of care” (CWC analogues in the Welfare branch). However, South
Africa has no provision for trying older juveniles as adults – 18 is a firm cutoff, period. In that
sense its regime is more protective than India’s current law (where 16–17s can be sent to
adult trial for heinous crimes).

Summary of Key Differences (Table)

United Kingdom
(England &
Aspect India United States (USA) Wales) South Africa

Legal definition of Under 18 years old Varies by state; Under 18 years Under 18 (Chil
“child” ijfmr.com generally under 18 old. Act); presumpt
(some states 17) capacity 10–14
jlc.org

Minimum age of 7 years (under IPC) No federal standard; 10 years old 10 years old; u
criminal liability – no offense; 7–12 many states set 10– (lowest in Europe) no criminal
only if “mature 12 as minimum; gov.uk . proceedings
enough” rsrr.in . some have no fixed
minimum.

Juvenile JJBs in districts (for Separate juvenile Youth Courts in Dedicated Chil
courts/jurisdiction under-18 CICL) courts (family courts) every Courts; child m
ijfmr.com . Separate in every state (up to magistrates’ court if charge
Juvenile Courts (or age ~16–18). Federal district (ages 10–
Children’s Courts) guidelines exist 17).
in some states. (JJDPA).

Transfer to adult Yes: 16–17 year- Yes (varies): many Limited: 10–17 No: 18 is the c
court olds charged with states allow “judicial usually stay in under 18 rema
“heinous” offences waiver” or automatic youth court; child justice sy
undergo JJB transfer of 16–17s murder and some with very limite
assessment; if (or even younger) in grave offences detention for 1
deemed fit they serious cases. can be escalated loc.gov .
are tried as adults to Crown Court.
indiacode.nic.in .

Philosophy/Objective Welfare model: Originally welfare Welfare model: Welfare/restor

rehabilitation and model; now mixed. rehabilitation model: focus o
protection, not 1960s-70s: rehab emphasized diversion, socia
retribution ijfmr.com focus; 80s-90s: (education and reintegration. C
. Reintegrative “tough on crime”. probation rights strongly
measures Today: rehab is orders). Legal emphasized.
official aim, but frameworks stress

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 15/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

United Kingdom
(England &
Aspect India United States (USA) Wales) South Africa

(education, prosecutorial power youth’s best

counselling). to try juveniles as interests.
adults.

Confidentiality Identity protected; Typically closed Proceedings are Closed courts;

no publication of proceedings; closed; identity of child offend
child’s name juvenile records protected. confidential un
ijfmr.com . sealed in many
jurisdictions.

International Party to UNCRC Not party to UNCRC; Party to UNCRC Party to UNCR
Conventions (ratified 1992) influenced by CRC (ratified 1991). (ratified 1995).
imprintnews.org , which principles through Follows CRC and Justice Act dev
influenced the domestic law. UN guidelines. consistent with
2000 Act. Also and African Ch
bound by Beijing
Rules, Riyadh
Guidelines.

Notable Juvenile G. Makkapati In re Gault (1967) – No equivalent (South Africa d

rights cases (1985) – rehab due process rights; landmark criminal have famous ca
focus ijfmr.com ; Salil Roper v. Simmons cases; juvenile analogous to th
Bali (2009) – (2005) – no rights protected however, its
upheld law, rehab execution of under provisions Constitutional
ethos ijfmr.com . juveniles law.cornell.edu ; of Children Act has reinforced
Jitendra Singh Miller v. Alabama and European rights in genera
(2008) – age must (2012) – no human rights law Justice Act prov
be determined by mandatory LWOP (e.g. R (D) [1990] statutory prote
exam ijfmr.com . supreme.justia.com ; J.D.B. on juvenile
v. North Carolina punishment).
(2011) – age matters
for custodial
interrogation
uscourts.gov .

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 16/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

United Kingdom
(England &
Aspect India United States (USA) Wales) South Africa

Additional notes Enables joint trials Extensive use of Youth Offending Emphasizes “u
in children’s courts probation, diversion, Teams (multi- and restorative
for CPC cases; counseling. Status agency). Probation Offic
provides adoption, offences treated ASBOs/Youth mandatory. Ch
foster care (CARA). separately Rehab Orders for who are victim
NGO role strong in (runaways, truancy). anti-social trafficking) hav
running homes. Juvenile records behavior. 16-17 protective prov
expunged at year-olds
majority. historically could
face adult
punishment
(recently limited).

Issues and Challenges in the Indian Juvenile Justice System

Despite progressive legislation, India’s juvenile justice system faces significant hurdles in
practice:

Age Determination and Documentation: Many children, especially from poor or rural
backgrounds, lack official birth records or schooling documents. This makes it difficult to
prove a claimed age. As a result, authorities often resort to medical or dental “age tests”
(which can be inaccurate). Although the Juvenile Justice Rules (2007) prioritize birth
certificates, the reality is murkier. Experts note that “poverty, illiteracy… and inadequacy
of the system often lead to there being no documentary proof of a person’s age.” When
juvenility is claimed late in the process, courts still entertain it (even after conviction), but
repeated medical tests strain the child and raise reliability issues rsrr.in . The risk is that
genuine juveniles might be treated as adults or held in limbo, undermining the law’s
intent.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 17/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Poor Conditions in Homes and Institutions: Inspections by social activists, media, and
even courts have repeatedly exposed dire conditions in observation/special homes. In
many facilities there are reports of overcrowding, substandard food, corporal
punishment, and even physical/sexual abuse by staff. Studies have shown that a majority
of children in these homes had faced violence (e.g. being whipped with belts) before
release bppj.studentorg.berkeley.edu . A series of surprise audits revealed “massively overcrowded
rooms, regularized corporal punishment, [and] watered-down meals” bppj.studentorg.berkeley.edu

. Malnutrition, lack of medical care, and sleep deprivation were common, leading to
health crises. Such custodial torture is especially acute among destitute and street
children (who make up a large share of inmates) bppj.studentorg.berkeley.edu . These conditions
starkly contradict the JJ Act’s protective aims and often go unchecked due to weak
oversight and corruption (as the Berkeley policy review documents).

Implementation Gaps and Infrastructure Shortfalls: Many states still lack the full
number of mandated JJBs, CWCs, or properly trained staff. Rural districts, in particular,
have few dedicated juvenile facilities; children are often kept in general police lock-ups
or sent to distant homes. Delay is a chronic issue: lack of judges and neglect can drag
juvenile cases for years, during which children may be detained. Even where JJBs exist,
support services (like probation officers or legal aid lawyers) are in short supply.
Paradoxically, the media (especially after high-profile crimes) pressure the government
to act swiftly on juvenile cases, but the system’s sluggishness means many children await
hearings much longer than intended. A parliamentary committee has noted such delays
and urged special courts to hasten proceedings.

Societal Attitudes and Misperceptions: India’s juvenile laws often become politically
charged. After the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case, public uproar led to a push for harsher
juvenile punishments. Policymakers cited criminal statistics to justify treating 16–18 year-
olds as adults. However, analysts argue the media hype was misleading: the NCRB’s own
data showed juvenile crime rose by only 0.9% from 2003 to 2013 imprintnews.org . Yet
sensational reports and moral panic can influence legislation and implementation.
Activists note that officials sometimes present juveniles primarily as dangerous criminals
rather than vulnerable youth (for instance, government officials downplayed UNCRC
standards in defense of tougher laws imprintnews.org ). Overcoming stigma is a challenge:
society often views juvenile offenders with fear or retribution, rather than sympathy,
which can translate into harsher treatment by police or judges.

Resource Constraints and Training: Juvenile justice is underfunded relative to need.

Specialized training for police, lawyers, and judiciary on child-friendly procedures is
inconsistent. As one review points out, many stakeholders (from police to judges) lack
awareness of the JJ Act’s requirements, leading to violations (like not giving bail to
eligible children). NGOs and volunteer organizations help bridge gaps, but reliance on
goodwill leads to patchy coverage.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 18/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Overall, the system’s lofty ideals clash with ground realities of poverty, illiteracy, and
institutional weakness. The reports and cases cited above (e.g. IAHR v. Bihar ijfmr.com ) reflect
the judiciary’s attempt to push for reforms in implementation. But long-term improvement
will require systemic investment, training, and sensitization.

Role of Police, Media, and Society

The juvenile justice system does not operate in a vacuum; it interacts with policing practices,
media narratives, and public opinion:

Police: Ideally, every police station should have a Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) with
trained officers to handle child cases. In practice, most police lack specialized training in
child rights. Often a juvenile offender is arrested and detained in a regular lock-up,
violating the Act’s spirit. Many junior officers treat juveniles as low-priority criminals,
leading to delays in bringing them to a JJB. However, there are examples of good
practice: some states have “Child Welfare Police Officers” and mandatory periodic
schools for police on juvenile laws. The attitude of law enforcement is gradually
changing, especially in urban centers.

Media: The media plays a powerful role in shaping perceptions of juvenile crime. High-
profile cases (like the 2012 Delhi rape, in which an accused was a juvenile) received
intense coverage. Such coverage can generate moral panic, with editors and talk shows
debating whether ‘teen criminals’ should get adult punishments. Analysts note that this
sensationalism often distorts reality: for example, officials cited rising juvenile crime
statistics to justify the 2015 amendments, but the NCRB data showed only a marginal
increase imprintnews.org . Sensational media can influence public policy, sometimes
pressuring legislators to focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. On the positive
side, media exposés (e.g. the Mint documentary on a Delhi shelter home) have
spotlighted abuses in juvenile homes, prompting judicial action.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 19/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Society: Societal attitudes toward juvenile offenders are mixed. Families and
communities often stigmatize youths who have been in conflict with the law. Many
people (especially those without knowledge of child psychology) question whether
young offenders “deserve” lenient treatment. Some politicians and citizens have called
for raising the juvenile age in cases of rape and murder, reflecting a punitive mindset.
Conversely, civil society organizations and activists stress the importance of treating
children as children. For example, after the 2015 law lowered protection for 16–17 year-
olds, advocacy groups highlighted India’s CRC obligations and the need for child welfare
imprintnews.org . Schools, religious groups, and NGOs often run awareness campaigns about
children's rights, aiming to inculcate empathy. But overall, public education about
juvenile law is limited. The police and courts remain the main arenas where societal
biases play out: in some regions, police refuse to file charges against juveniles or delay
court production, reflecting community leniency; in others, they push for severe
treatment.

In sum, while the law provides protective rules, their application is influenced by law
enforcement culture, media framing, and public sentiment. Strengthening children’s
outcomes thus requires not just legal reform but broader social change and sensitivity.

Rehabilitative and Reformative Measures

Rehabilitation is the cornerstone of the juvenile justice philosophy in India. The 2015 Act and
its rules (as well as programs under ICPS) outline several measures:

Educational and Vocational Training: All children in institutional care must receive
education. Juveniles in conflict with law are to be enrolled in schools or non-formal
education if they were out of school ijfmr.com . Juveniles often receive vocational training
(tailoring, carpentry, computer skills) during their stay, to improve employability on
release. NGOs and state-run homes frequently partner with skills institutes for this
purpose.

Counseling and Psychological Support: The Act mandates counseling by psychologists

or social workers as part of the JJB’s orders. Group therapy and anger-management
programs are common interventions for delinquents. For CNCP children (e.g. abused or
extremely vulnerable children), psychological counseling is provided as needed. The
goal is to address behavioral issues and emotional trauma, which are often root causes
of juvenile misbehavior.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 20/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Community Service and Diversion: JJBs often employ community service orders
(cleaning, helping at NGOs) for minor offences, keeping youth out of custody. Under the
Juvenile Justice Model Rules (2016), low-risk offenders may be diverted to community or
home-based programs. The Delhi Department of WCD explicitly states that
“rehabilitation and social reintegration… shall begin during the stay of the child in [a
home]” and continues through adoption, foster care, sponsorship, or after-care
wcd.delhi.gov.in . This means even during institutionalization, every effort should be made to
find the child a normal family environment (through adoption/foster) or at least a
supportive sponsor.

After-Care and Halfway Homes: Children leaving CCIs are not just dumped on the
street. The JJ Act provides for after-care programmes for up to 3 years after release. This
can include placement in halfway homes, periodic follow-ups by Probation Officers,
mentoring, and continued education support. For example, a 17-year-old released under
probation may remain under supervision (or in a After-Care Organization) until age 20,
until “good conduct” bond expires wcd.delhi.gov.in .

Use of Sponsorship and Foster Care: Recognizing that many juvenile offenders are
effectively orphaned or abandoned, the system uses foster care and sponsorship
schemes. NGOs recruit volunteer families or sponsors to temporarily take children
during and after CCI-stays, offering a family atmosphere. These options are encouraged
as alternatives to sending children to long-term institutions. The Act also streamlined
adoption: CWCs and designated adoption agencies work together so that children
legally free (orphaned/abandoned) can be placed in adoptive homes, as per CARA
guidelines wcd.delhi.gov.in .

Confidentiality as Therapeutic Measure: By legally prohibiting the publication of a

child’s identity ijfmr.com , the system aims to prevent social ostracism, which helps
rehabilitation. A clean record and anonymity allow a rehabilitated youth to find
education or employment without stigma.

Legal Aid and Advocacy: Children in conflict with law are entitled to free legal aid.
Social workers or child welfare NGOs often assist in securing lawyers from legal aid
services. This is part of reformative justice, ensuring that juveniles understand
proceedings and their rights. NGOs also play roles in counseling families, preventing
secondary victimization, and arranging reintegration ceremonies.

In summary, India’s rehabilitative measures (counseling, education, vocational training,

community integration) are in line with international best practices ijfmr.com wcd.delhi.gov.in .
However, in reality the quality and reach of these programs vary. Many institutions lack staff
or resources for effective training, and after-care is weak except in a few urban NGOs.
Strengthening these measures is an ongoing challenge.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 21/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

International Conventions and India’s Obligations

India’s juvenile justice legislation is heavily influenced by its international treaty obligations.
The most significant of these is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC,
1989). India ratified the UNCRC in 1992, committing to treat all persons under 18 as children
and to uphold special protections for them. Article 37 of the CRC, for example, forbids
torture or life imprisonment for juvenile offenders and mandates that detention be used only
as a last resort (which echoes Salil Bali and Makkapati emphasis on last resort). Article 40 of
the CRC requires that child offenders be treated in a manner promoting their sense of
dignity and worth, with reintegration into society. The 2000 and 2015 JJ Acts explicitly reflect
CRC principles: defining child as under 18 imprintnews.org , focusing on reintegration, and
expanding care categories.

India is also influenced by the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of
Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules, 1985), the UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile
Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines, 1990), and the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles
Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules, 1990). The Beijing Rules, for instance, call for
separating juveniles from adults in custody and for individualized disposition – both
reflected in India’s Act (JJB/CWC distinction). The Riyadh Guidelines emphasize education,
social development, and addressing poverty as preventive measures, which should guide
India’s juvenile policy beyond just legal measures.

India reports on CRC compliance periodically to the UN Committee on the Rights of the
Child. The Committee has generally praised India’s juvenile legislation but pointed out
shortfalls (e.g. actual conditions in homes, age-based discrimination). India also participates
in regional mechanisms (e.g. the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation on child
rights) and monitors the Beijing Rules via domestic policies. In sum, international norms
push India to maintain a child-centered, rehabilitative juvenile system.

Notably, India has not signed the optional protocol on child soldiers or on child trafficking
(which are parallel, not directly juvenile justice), but it fully implements the core CRC
obligations in its juvenile code. By contrast, the USA (unlike UK and South Africa) has not
ratified the UNCRC, which sometimes colors international criticism of its juvenile practices.

Recent Developments and Amendments

India’s juvenile law has seen a few key updates since 2015. The most significant is the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, which took effect
in September 2022. Two major changes are:

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 22/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Adoption Authority: Earlier, a JJB or CWC could permit a child’s adoption. The
amendment transfers this power to the District Magistrate (DM)/District Collector
en.wikipedia.org . This was intended to streamline adoption orders and reduce delays. The
Act now requires every adoption agency and recognized children’s home to follow
CARA guidelines under the DM’s supervision en.wikipedia.org .

“Serious Offences” Category: The amendment revised the classification of offences.

Previously, only “heinous offences” (≥7 years IPC) triggered the special 16–18 process.
Now a broader category of “serious offences” (lowering the threshold to offences with
7–10 year penalty) is included en.wikipedia.org . This means more cases involving older
juveniles will be subject to Board assessment. Some critics argue this undermines the
juvenile framework by effectively expanding prosecutorial powers, while supporters say
it addresses loopholes.

Additionally, periodic government reports mention initiatives to improve juvenile justice,

such as funding new juvenile homes under ICPS, launching training modules for JJB
members, and establishing Nari Shakti Vandan Adalats (fast-track justice) which occasionally
include children’s cases for speedy disposal. There has also been discussion (but no law yet)
about raising the age of criminal responsibility (minimum age) from 7 to 12, in line with
several expert recommendations.

In case law, one significant 2017 judgment (Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana) clarified that
provisions of the 2015 Act (except the heinous offences clause) cannot apply retrospectively
to cases committed before the Act’s commencement. The Supreme Court held that a
juvenile’s rights must be assessed based on the law in force at the time of the offence,
except that plea of juvenility can still be raised late (which has been affirmed multiple times).
This settled some confusion over whether the 2015 tougher provisions could be applied to
older cases.

On the policy front, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and
state Child Rights Commissions have been more active in oversight. However, high-level
government reviews (e.g. parliamentary committees) repeatedly note the need for better
data collection on juveniles and for greater involvement of NGOs in After-Care organizations.
Overall, while the legal framework remains largely the 2015 Act (with the above
amendments), there is ongoing administrative focus on improving implementation and child
outcomes.

Conclusion and Suggestions for Reform

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 23/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

India’s Juvenile Justice System has come a long way, from fragmented colonial-era rules to a
comprehensive child-centric law and institutional framework. The 2015 Act, backed by
international norms and supportive jurisprudence ijfmr.com imprintnews.org , emphasizes the ideal
of rehabilitation over retribution. There are clear strengths: uniform definitions (18 years),
district-level boards and committees, statutory focus on education and family-based care,
and legal guarantees of confidentiality. These align with best practices and contrast with
more punitive systems.

However, significant gaps remain. Age-determination problems continue to haunt the

process, often to the detriment of genuine juveniles. Institutional abuses and resource
scarcities have drawn judicial ire ijfmr.com bppj.studentorg.berkeley.edu . The episodic politicization of
juvenile crimes (leading to laws like the 2015 amendment) threatens to derail the
rehabilitative ethos. Moreover, variation across states in infrastructure and awareness means
many children still fall through the cracks.

To address these, the following reforms are suggested:

1. Improve Age Verification: Invest in reliable and humane age-verification (e.g. wider use
of data systems, mandatory birth registration) so that the conflict over age (and belated
juvenility pleas) becomes rare rsrr.in . Explore standardized training for medical age-
assessment with scientific accuracy, and speed up issuance of Aadhaar or birth
certificates for at-risk children.

2. Strengthen Institutional Capacity: Allocate budget and recruit personnel to ensure

every district has functional JJB, CWC, and qualified staff. Upgrade juvenile homes with
better facilities (as courts have ordered) and increase NGO partnerships for smaller,
community-based homes. Regular independent inspections must be enforced to
eliminate overcrowding and abuse (the IAHR v. Bihar case demonstrates the need)
ijfmr.com .

3. Expand Diversion and Aftercare: Accelerate the use of alternative measures (like open
shelters or mentorship programs) to avoid entry into formal custody. Enhance after-care
organizations with vocational support and microfinance linkages for released juveniles.
Encourage wider use of foster care and sponsorship (the Act’s list in Delhi guidelines
wcd.delhi.gov.in should become practice nationwide).

4. Raise Awareness and Training: Educate police, judges, lawyers, and communities about
child rights. Make special juvenile training mandatory in police academies and judicial
orientation programs. Conduct public campaigns to reduce stigma and highlight
success stories of reformed juveniles.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 24/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

5. Revisit Legal Minimum Age: Given global trends and child psychology, India should
consider raising the age of criminal responsibility from 7 to a higher minimum (12–14).
This was recommended by the CrPC Committee of 2018 and aligned with CRC feedback.
It would spare very young children from any criminal proceedings and emphasize
protective measures instead.

6. Data and Research: Improve data collection (NCRB and NGO sources) to monitor
juvenile trends accurately. Commission independent studies on recidivism, effectiveness
of programs, and the socio-economic backgrounds of juvenile offenders to inform
policy.

7. Legislative Safeguards: Ensure the amendment expanding “serious offences” is carefully

applied so as not to disenfranchise minors. Any further changes must be rooted in
evidence of deterrence efficacy, not just public pressure. Building consensus across
political lines (as in other welfare reforms) would help stabilize juvenile law.

In conclusion, India’s juvenile justice framework is comprehensive on paper, but its potential
will only be realized through earnest implementation and societal support. By reinforcing its
child-welfare orientation and plugging current gaps, India can better protect vulnerable
youth and fulfill its constitutional and international obligations.

Bibliography
1. Government of India, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Available via India Code database indiacode.nic.in .

2. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2016 (India), Ministry of Women
and Child Development.

3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (India), Ministry of Women
and Child Development.

4. Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Concluding observations on the combined fifth
and sixth reports of India” (2014).

5. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2017) 2 SCC 633 (SC).

6. Gopalachari Makkapati v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 347 (SC) ijfmr.com .

7. Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2009) 1 SCC 18 ijfmr.com .

8. Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2008) 3 SCC 161 ijfmr.com .

9. International Assn. for Human Rights v. State of Bihar, (2013) 5 SCC 545 ijfmr.com .

10. Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2017 SC 529 (SC).

11. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) law.cornell.edu .

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 25/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

12. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) supreme.justia.com .

13. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) uscourts.gov .

14. Juvenile Justice System in India: A Comprehensive Study, Rupa Kapoor, 2017 (Book).

15. Kumar, A. K., Juvenile Justice in India: Policy, Programme, and Perspective, 2019 (Book).

16. Ved Kumari, Juvenile Justice: The Indian Experience, 2016 (Book).

17. Ministry of Women and Child Development, National Policy for Children, 2013 (India).

18. N.C. Joshi, “Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Key changes and
implementation challenges”, NIPFP Occasional Paper, 2016.

19. J.L. Mukkamala & B.S. Shekhar, “Juvenile Justice System in India: Issues and Challenges”,
Indian Journal of Public Administration, 2019.

20. S.K. Reddy & P. DeCosta, “Juvenile Justice in India and USA: A Comparative Analysis”,
International Journal of Law, 2020.

21. UNICEF India, “Juvenile Justice System in India”, UNICEF publication, 2021.

22. NHRC, Children in India 2019 – A Statistical Appraisal, (National Human Rights
Commission Report).

23. NCRB, Crime in India 2022 (Government publication with juvenile crime data).

24. M. Mukhopadhyay, “Children Behind Bars – India’s Juvenile Justice System”, Economic &
Political Weekly, 2019.

25. Gonsalves, R. (Imprint News), “India’s Care and Protection of Children Act Tries
Teenagers as Adults” (analysis article, April 2015) imprintnews.org imprintnews.org .

26. Ghosh, A., “Belated Claim of Juvenility: Issues, Concerns and the Way Forward”, NLU
Delhi Working Paper, 2020 rsrr.in .

27. Acharyya, S., “Juvenile Justice Reform in India: The 2015 Act”, Law Commission of India
Working Paper, 2018.

28. Govt of UK (National Archives/GOV.UK), “Age of Criminal Responsibility in England and

Wales” (2023) gov.uk .

29. The Guardian (UK), “Age of criminal responsibility must be raised, say experts”, Nov 2019
theguardian.com .

30. U.S. Dept. of Justice – OJJDP, “Youth in the Justice System: An Overview” (Juvenile Law
Center) jlc.org .

31. Juvenile Law Center (USA), “Juvenile Justice System: An Overview” (2017) jlc.org .

32. Library of Congress, Global Legal Monitor, “South Africa: Child Justice Act Takes Effect”
(2010) loc.gov loc.gov .

33. National Dept. of Justice (South Africa), Child Justice Act, 2008.

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 26/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

34. Restorative Justice International, “Child Justice Act of South Africa (Act 75 of 2008):
Summary”.

35. International Helsinki Federation, “Real Dungeons: The Juvenile Justice System in Rio de
Janeiro” (2000).

36. Ind. State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (ISCPCR), Child Rights Bulletin, Vol.
12, Issue 4, 2019.

37. Xavier, P., “Custodial Torture – Juvenile Justice Homes in India”, Berkeley Public Policy
Journal, Fall 2019 bppj.studentorg.berkeley.edu bppj.studentorg.berkeley.edu .

38. “Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration of Children” (Delhi WCD website) wcd.delhi.gov.in .

39. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) reports (annual).

40. Additional sources: Constitutions of India, UK, SA; UNICEF thematic reports; academic
theses on juvenile justice; official gazettes.

(All sources used above are cited in text by bracketed format; un-cited but relevant statutes
and reports are listed for completeness.)

Annexures
Annexure A: Table of Juvenile Crimes and Court Statistics (selected data, NCRB 2010–
2020) (attached separately).

Annexure B: Organizational Diagram of India’s Juvenile Justice Institutions.

Annexure C: Relevant Sections of the Juvenile Justice (CPC) Act, 2015 (Definitions and
Key Provisions).

Citations

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

ROPER v. SIMMONS | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/03-633

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 27/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

Miller v. Alabama | 567 U.S. 460 (2012) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/460/

Age of criminal responsibility - GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility

South Africa: Child Justice Act Takes Effect | Library of Congress

https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2010-04-14/south-africa-child-justice-act-takes-effect/

South Africa: Child Justice Act Takes Effect | Library of Congress

https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2010-04-14/south-africa-child-justice-act-takes-effect/

South Africa: Child Justice Act Takes Effect | Library of Congress

https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2010-04-14/south-africa-child-justice-act-takes-effect/

Belated Claim of Juvenility: Issues, Concerns and the Way Forward

https://www.rsrr.in/post/belated-claim-of-juvenility-issues-concerns-and-the-way-forward

Fall 2019 Journal: Custodial Torture – Juvenile Justice Homes in India - Berkeley Pub…
https://bppj.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2019/10/11/fall-2019-journal-custodial-torture-juvenile-justice-
homes-in-india/

India’s Care and Protection of Children Act Tries Teenagers as Adults

https://imprintnews.org/featured/trying-indias-teenagers-adults-deterrence-vengeance/18653

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration | Department of Women and Child Develop…

https://wcd.delhi.gov.in/wcd/rehabilitation-and-social-reintegration

India’s Care and Protection of Children Act Tries Teenagers as Adults

https://imprintnews.org/featured/trying-indias-teenagers-adults-deterrence-vengeance/18653

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_Justice_(Care_and_Protection_of_Children)_Act,_2015#History

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 28/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19022/1/juvenile_justice_%28care_and_protection_of_

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10885.pdf

Facts and Case Summary - J.D.B. v. North Carolina

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-jdb-v-
north-carolina

Youth in the Justice System: An Overview | Juvenile Law Center

https://jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview

Youth in the Justice System: An Overview | Juvenile Law Center

https://jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview

Youth in the Justice System: An Overview | Juvenile Law Center

https://jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview

Age of criminal responsibility must be raised, say experts | Youth justice | The Guard…
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/04/age-of-criminal-responsibility-must-be-raised-say-
experts

Belated Claim of Juvenility: Issues, Concerns and the Way Forward

https://www.rsrr.in/post/belated-claim-of-juvenility-issues-concerns-and-the-way-forward

Fall 2019 Journal: Custodial Torture – Juvenile Justice Homes in India - Berkeley Pub…

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 29/30
5/15/25, 11:38 PM ChatGPT - Shared Content

https://bppj.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2019/10/11/fall-2019-journal-custodial-torture-juvenile-justice-
homes-in-india/

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_Justice_(Care_and_Protection_of_Children)_Act,_2015#History

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_Justice_(Care_and_Protection_of_Children)_Act,_2015#History

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19022/1/juvenile_justice_%28care_and_protection_of_

India’s Care and Protection of Children Act Tries Teenagers as Adults

https://imprintnews.org/featured/trying-indias-teenagers-adults-deterrence-vengeance/18653

All Sources

ijfmr law.cornell supreme.justia gov loc rsrr bppj.stu....berkeley

imprintnews wcd.delhi.gov en.wikipedia indiacode.nic uscourts jlc

theguardian

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68262d3f6f408191ad6529ae85d7e022 30/30