THE EVOLUTION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA: RETRIBUTION TO RESTORATION BY - SIRI ADUSUMILLI
THE EVOLUTION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA: RETRIBUTION TO RESTORATION
AUTHORED BY - SIRI ADUSUMILLI
B.A LL.B, Hons.
NALSAR University Of Law, Hyderabad
ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes the role of
juvenile justice jurisprudence in the evolution of India’s legal framework,
emphasizing its critical transition from retributive approaches to
rehabilitative practices. It explores the historical development of juvenile justice
laws in India, mainly focusing on key milestones such as the Juvenile Justice
Act of 1986 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of
2015. These legislative reforms are contextualized within the broader societal
and international frameworks emphasizing child welfare and rights.
This study examines the influence of
public sentiment and landmark cases, notably the Nirbhaya case, which catalyzed
legislative changes permitting juveniles aged 16–18 to be tried as adults for
heinous crimes under specific conditions. Through a detailed analysis of legal
principles, psychological studies, and comparative global practices, the paper
investigates the tension between rehabilitation and retribution, emphasizing
the constitutional mandate to uphold the child's best interests.
INTRODUCTION
Juvenile justice jurisprudence
predicates rehabilitation as opposed to retribution; its evolution beckons the
transformation of laws into comprehensible ones within the legislative
framework. The historical trajectory of the same in Indian law highlights the
measures taken to transition the system away from a punitive one. The Juvenile
Justice Act of 1986[1]
was the first national effort to create a uniform framework for juvenile
justice across India, replacing earlier state-specific laws.[2] It
categorized juveniles into two groups: those in conflict with the law, meaning
children accused of committing crimes, and those in need of care and
protection, referring to neglected or abused children. The Act emphasized reformation
over punishment and established separate procedures to address the unique needs
of juveniles.
In 2000, the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act[3]
was introduced to align India’s juvenile laws with international standards
following its ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (UNCRC) in 1992.[4] This
Act prioritized rehabilitation, deinstitutionalization, and family-based care
through measures such as foster care and adoption while prohibiting the death
penalty and life imprisonment for juveniles. The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act[5]
2015 brought about further significant changes, influenced by public outrage
over heinous crimes involving juveniles, particularly the 2012 Nirbhaya
case.[6] This
legislation introduced provisions allowing juveniles aged 16-18 to be tried as
adults for heinous offenses, subject to an assessment by the Juvenile Justice
Board (JJB). It also strengthened the adoption and child welfare framework,
with specific provisions for foster care and guidelines for the Central
Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). While these reforms highlighted the
importance of rehabilitation, they also sought to address public safety
concerns.
The constitutional framework in
India provides robust support for the protection and welfare of children. Article
15(3)[7]
empowers the State to make special provisions for children and women,
recognizing their vulnerability and need for additional safeguards. Article
21[8]
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted by courts to
include the right to dignity, development, and rehabilitation of children. Articles
39(e)[9]
and (f)[10]
mandate the State to ensure that children are not abused or forced into
vocations unsuitable to their age or strength while directing that
opportunities be provided for their healthy development in freedom and dignity.
These provisions form the cornerstone of juvenile justice jurisprudence in
India, reinforcing the State’s duty to protect and nurture children.
The primary objective of the
juvenile justice system is rehabilitation, focusing on treating juveniles as
individuals with the potential for reform rather than as criminals deserving
punishment. This rehabilitative philosophy recognizes the inherent differences
between juveniles and adults regarding maturity, culpability, and capacity for
change. It emphasizes reformation through education, counseling, vocational
training, and psychological support, ensuring that juveniles are not
stigmatized or hardened by exposure to adult penal systems. The juvenile
justice framework's guiding principles include prioritizing the child's best
interest, treating juveniles in conflict with the law as individuals needing
guidance rather than punishment, and fostering their reintegration into society
by equipping them with skills and opportunities for a meaningful future.
The institutional mechanisms under
this system include Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees
(CWCs). JJBs, composed of a judicial magistrate and two social workers,
adjudicate cases involving juveniles in conflict with the law, ensuring a balance
of legal and rehabilitative perspectives. CWCs address the needs of children
requiring care and protection, facilitating family-based solutions,
institutional care, or adoption as necessary. Consistent with India’s
international obligations under treaties like the UNCRC, the juvenile justice
system is committed to restorative approaches to juvenile delinquency, striving
to balance the imperatives of rehabilitation with the broader goals of justice
and public safety.
CASE REFERENCE
The case of Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT[11]
of Delhi (commonly referred to as the Nirbhaya case) represents a pivotal
moment in Indian legal history, particularly in juvenile justice reform. This
case exemplifies the tension between public sentiment, the principles of juvenile
justice, and the State’s constitutional and international obligations. On
December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old woman, later referred to as
"Nirbhaya," was brutally gang-raped and assaulted on a private bus in
Delhi by six individuals, including a juvenile. The sheer heinousness of the
crime shocked the nation, and Nirbhaya’s death on December 29, 2012, ignited
widespread outrage.
The juvenile accused, aged 17 at the
time, was alleged to have played a significant and violent role in the assault.
However, he was tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act,[12]
2000, which shielded him from being treated as an adult and limited his
sentence to a maximum of three years in a reformative home. The case
highlighted several legal and policy issues, including the appropriateness of
the age threshold of 18 years under the Juvenile Justice Act for heinous
crimes. Public opinion overwhelmingly demanded lowering the age of juvenility,
asserting that individuals capable of committing such atrocities should face
stricter punishments irrespective of their age.
The case also questioned whether the
juvenile justice framework adequately balanced the need for societal justice
and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and reform of juveniles. Critics
examined whether the existing law sufficiently addressed the realities of
heinous crimes committed by minors, notably as juvenile involvement in severe
offenses appeared to be on the rise. While the adult accused were convicted
under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for gang rape and
murder and sentenced to death—a decision upheld by the High Court and the
Supreme Court—the juvenile accused was tried separately under the Juvenile
Justice Board’s jurisdiction, as mandated by the 2000 Act.[13]
He received the maximum sentence
permissible under the law: three years in a reformative home. This decision
drew widespread criticism, with many perceiving the sentence as
disproportionately lenient given the gravity of the offense. The Supreme Court,
however, upheld the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing its legislative intent
and India's obligations under international law, particularly the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The Court reiterated
that juveniles, due to their developmental immaturity and greater capacity for
reform, must be treated differently from adults under the justice system.
The public outcry following the case
led to significant legislative changes, including establishing the Justice
Verma Committee[14]
in 2013. This committee was tasked with recommending reforms in laws related to
sexual violence. While it opposed lowering the age of juvenility, it emphasized
systemic changes to ensure justice for victims and effective rehabilitation of
offenders. Subsequently, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act,[15]
2015, was enacted, introducing provisions to allow juveniles aged 16 to 18 to
be tried as adults for heinous crimes.
This determination, however,
required a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board to evaluate the
juvenile's mental and physical capacity to commit the offense, their ability to
understand its consequences, and the circumstances under which the offense was
committed. The Supreme Court’s rationale underscored the rule of law,
emphasizing that legal principles and legislative frameworks must prevail over
public sentiment to ensure fairness and consistency.
The case also reinforced the focus
on reformative justice, recognizing the psychological and developmental
differences between juveniles and adults. While the legislative amendments
sought to address public demands for accountability, they retained a
rehabilitative ethos by mandating careful evaluations before juveniles could be
tried as adults. Thus, The Nirbhaya case is a critical example of how public
opinion and judicial philosophy can intersect to shape the trajectory of legal
reform in sensitive domains like juvenile justice.
SOCIO-LEGAL ASPECTS
The debate surrounding juvenile
justice systems often revolves around two competing philosophies:
rehabilitation and retribution. This dichotomy became particularly prominent
following the Nirbhaya case, where the involvement of a juvenile in a heinous
crime sparked discussions about the efficacy and fairness of treating juveniles
under a rehabilitative framework.
On the one hand, the rehabilitation
perspective views juveniles as individuals in a developmental stage with the
capacity for change, emphasizing the provision of education, psychological
support, and skill development to reintegrate them into society as law-abiding
citizens. This approach aligns with constitutional mandates like Article
39(f)[16]
and international conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which advocate prioritizing the child's best
interests. On the other hand, proponents of retributive justice argue that
juveniles involved in heinous crimes should face stricter accountability to
ensure justice for victims and deter future offenders.
Retribution also addresses public
demands for punishment proportional to the gravity of the crime. Psychological
studies have reinforced the case for rehabilitation, noting that juveniles’
prefrontal cortex, responsible for decision-making and impulse control, remains
underdeveloped until their mid-20s.[17]
This underdevelopment affects their ability to foresee consequences, exercise
restraint, and resist peer pressure. Furthermore, juveniles exhibit heightened
neuroplasticity, making them more responsive to rehabilitative interventions
than adults.
Research indicates that most
juvenile offenders can be reformed with appropriate counseling, education, and
vocational training. Comparatively, India’s juvenile justice system reflects a
mix of international practices. The UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992,
emphasizes a rehabilitative approach, focusing on reintegration and
constructive participation in society. For instance, Article 37 of the UNCRC[18]
prohibits life imprisonment without parole for children under 18 and mandates
humane treatment.
Globally, practices vary—while the
United States allows juveniles to be tried as adults in certain severe cases,
this approach has faced criticism for its long-term social and psychological
consequences. In contrast, Scandinavian countries focus almost exclusively on
rehabilitation through structured reintegration programs, and the United
Kingdom adopts a hybrid model, detaining juveniles in secure training centers
that combine rehabilitative services with accountability measures.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The 2015 Act[19]
introduced provisions allowing juveniles aged 16–18 accused of heinous crimes
to be tried as adults, provided specific conditions were met. Heinous offenses
were punishable by imprisonment of seven years or more under the Indian Penal
Code (IPC). A key feature was the preliminary assessment conducted by the
Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to evaluate the juvenile's mental and physical
capacity to commit the offense, their understanding of its consequences, and
the circumstances of the crime.
If deemed capable, the case could be
transferred to a Children’s Court for trial as an adult. Despite these changes,
the Act retained a focus on rehabilitation, ensuring that juveniles convicted
as adults were not housed with adult offenders, even in incarceration. The
amendments faced criticism on multiple fronts.
Critics argued that trying juveniles
as adults violated principles enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child (UNCRC), which India has ratified, emphasizing reintegration and
humane treatment for juveniles. Additionally, research suggests that subjecting
juveniles to adult trials and incarceration increases the likelihood of
reoffending due to exposure to punitive environments and hardened criminals.
Concerns were also raised about the lack of clear, standardized guidelines for
JJB assessments, leading to inconsistent application across cases and regions.
Implementation of the Act has faced
significant challenges. Rehabilitation homes across India suffer from
inadequate funding, overcrowding, and insufficient facilities, limiting their
ability to provide vocational training, psychological counseling, and
education. A shortage of trained professionals, including psychologists and
social workers, further hampers practical assessment and rehabilitation. The
resource disparity between states exacerbates these issues, with underdeveloped
states struggling to meet basic requirements. Moreover, juveniles tried as
adults or labeled as offenders often face societal stigma, making reintegration
and employment difficult.
Despite these challenges, success stories
highlight the potential of rehabilitative measures. In Maharashtra, a juvenile
accused of theft received vocational training in carpentry and tailoring,
securing stable employment after his sentence. Tamil Nadu introduced skill
development programs in reform homes, offering computer literacy and mechanics
courses, which helped many juveniles reintegrate successfully. In Delhi,
collaboration with NGOs provided counseling and family therapy, leading to
marked behavioral improvements and reconnection with families.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act 2015,[20]
reflects an attempt to balance societal demands for accountability with the
rehabilitative philosophy of juvenile justice. However, its effectiveness
depends on addressing challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, the
shortage of trained professionals, and societal stigma. Success stories
demonstrate the transformative potential of rehabilitation, emphasizing the
need for sustained investment and a focus on child welfare and reform to ensure
the juvenile justice system achieves its intended goals.
CURRENT SCENARIO
The current scenario of juvenile
justice in India reveals a complex interplay of developments and challenges in
the aftermath of the Nirbhaya case, marked by notable recent cases and trends
in juvenile crimes. In a significant 2023 case from Delhi, a 17-year-old was
charged with gang rape and abduction. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) decided
to try the individual as an adult due to the heinous nature of the crime and
the demonstrated mental maturity, reigniting debates about rehabilitation
versus retribution under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015.
This law allows juveniles aged 16–18
involved in heinous crimes to be assessed for their capacity to understand the
consequences of their actions and potentially tried as adults. Another example,
the 2022 Mumbai minor assault case, involved a juvenile in a fatal peer
assault. The JJB opted for counseling and housing the offender in a reform home
instead of pursuing an adult trial, reflecting the rehabilitative provisions of
the act. Notably, the Nirbhaya case juvenile offender, post-release in 2015,
was reportedly involved in radical activities, raising concerns about the
long-term effectiveness of rehabilitation.
Statistically, Delhi recorded the
highest juvenile crime rate among major cities in 2022, as per NCRB data.
Crimes included theft, burglary, and sexual offenses. A notable trend was a 10%
rise in juveniles involved in heinous crimes from 2021 to 2022, attributed to
socio-economic factors and criminal influences. Recidivism remains a
significant issue, with many juveniles struggling to reintegrate into society
due to stigmatization and a lack of follow-up support.
The Juvenile Justice Act 2015,[21]
aims to balance societal safety with rehabilitation, especially for those aged
16–18 accused of heinous crimes. However, its implementation faces challenges,
such as inconsistent assessments, insufficient rehabilitative infrastructure,
and social stigma. While rehabilitative measures have shown success in some
cases, other instances, like repeated offenses post-rehabilitation, underscore
the risks of punitive approaches without adequate support systems. The
discourse emphasizes the need for evidence-based policies integrating
developmental psychology, improved rehabilitation frameworks, and public
education to support reintegration.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the juvenile justice
system in India embodies an evolving framework that seeks to balance the
imperatives of rehabilitation and public safety. The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 represents a significant step in addressing
societal concerns over heinous crimes committed by juveniles aged 16–18. While
the act has introduced necessary provisions to ensure accountability, it
retains a rehabilitative ethos. However, challenges persist in implementation,
including inconsistent assessments, inadequate rehabilitative infrastructure,
and the stigmatization of juveniles, which hinder reintegration and potentially
increase recidivism.
To enhance the system’s
effectiveness, future policies must prioritize robust rehabilitation programs,
including skill development and mental health support, alongside public
education to foster acceptance and reintegration. A balanced approach is
essential—one that upholds societal safety while recognizing juveniles as
individuals with the capacity for reform and reintegration. Through
evidence-based policies and sustained investment, India’s juvenile justice
system can strive to achieve its dual goals of justice and reformation.
[1] The
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
[2] “Quest Journals : Home.” Www.questjournals.org,
www.questjournals.org.
[3] “Juvenile Justice Act 2000 |
Department of Women and Child Development.” Wcd.delhi.gov.in,
wcd.delhi.gov.in/wcd/juvenile-justice-act-2000.
[4] “Treaty Bodies Treaties.” Tbinternet.ohchr.org,
tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CRC&Lang=en.
[5] “Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015.” Indiacode.nic.in,
2016,
www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2148?view_type=browse#:~:text=An%20Act%20to%20consolidate%20and,
https://doi.org/201602.
[6] “NIRBHAYA CASE, 2012» Lawful
Legal.” Lawful Legal, 23 Mar. 2024,
lawfullegal.in/nirbhaya-case-2012/. Accessed 24 Nov. 2024.
[7] Nothing in this article shall
prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
[8] No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
[9] that the health and strength of
workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that
citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to
their age or strength;
[10] that children are given
opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions
of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against
exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
[14] “Committee Reports.” PRS Legislative Research,
prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/justice-verma-committee-report-summary.
[17] Abrams, Zara. “What Neuroscience
Tells Us about the Teenage Brain.” American
Psychological Association, 1 July 2022,
www.apa.org/monitor/2022/07/feature-neuroscience-teen-brain.
[18] UNICEF. “Convention on the Rights of
the Child.” Unicef, 1989,
www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text.
