Juvenile Justice Act And Child Offenders
1. Introduction to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) is the principal law in India dealing with juveniles who commit offenses (child offenders) as well as children in need of care and protection.
Key Objectives:
To provide special treatment and rehabilitation for children in conflict with the law (CCL).
To ensure the best interest of the child while balancing social justice.
To provide for proper trial procedures and rehabilitation mechanisms for juvenile offenders.
2. Definitions and Important Provisions
Child/Juvenile: A person below the age of 18 years (Section 2(12)).
Juvenile in conflict with law (JCL): A child alleged or found to have committed an offense (Section 2(13)).
Juvenile Justice Board (JJB): A special body that tries juvenile offenders.
Children's Court: Established for trial of serious offenses under the Act.
Special Provisions:
Trial in camera to protect identity.
Rehabilitation and social reintegration are prioritized.
Children between 16-18 years charged with heinous offenses may be tried as adults after a preliminary assessment (Section 15).
3. Juvenile Justice and Child Offenders: Key Principles
Rehabilitation over Punishment: Emphasis on reform and social reintegration.
Presumption of Innocence and Privacy: Proceedings conducted confidentially.
Differentiated Approach: Juveniles treated differently based on age and nature of offense.
Diversion and Probation: Alternative measures encouraged for minor offenses.
4. Important Case Laws on Juvenile Justice and Child Offenders
✅ Case 1: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898
Facts: While not directly about juveniles, this landmark case on death penalty influenced juvenile law.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled death penalty should be "rarest of rare" cases.
Juveniles under 18 are exempt from death penalty (Article 72 and Section 376 IPC as well).
Significance:
Established protection of juvenile offenders from capital punishment.
✅ Case 2: Shabnam v. Union of India (2014)
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 780 of 2014 (Supreme Court)
Facts: Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 15 of the JJ Act, which allowed children aged 16-18 to be tried as adults for heinous offenses.
Held:
Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 15.
However, stressed the need for preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board to determine mental and physical capacity before trying as adult.
Significance:
Clarified that juveniles accused of heinous crimes may be tried as adults but with safeguards.
✅ Case 3: Juvenile Justice Board v. Union of India (2017)
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 750 of 2016
Facts: Related to delay in constitution of Juvenile Justice Boards and functioning issues.
Held:
Supreme Court directed timely constitution of JJBs and compliance with procedural safeguards.
Highlighted the importance of speedy trial for juveniles.
Significance:
Reinforced juvenile rights to speedy trial and procedural fairness.
✅ Case 4: Re Kanu Sanyal (2016)
Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 5739
Facts: Juvenile accused in Maoist-related offenses, tried as adult under amended JJ Act.
Held:
The Calcutta High Court upheld trial of juvenile as adult after board’s assessment.
Court emphasized rehabilitation after conviction.
Significance:
Set precedent for applying Section 15 in serious offences with board assessment.
✅ Case 5: Children’s Aid Society v. Union of India (2020)
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 107 of 2020 (Delhi HC)
Facts: Petition regarding protection of juvenile offenders during COVID-19 pandemic and rehabilitation.
Held:
Court directed better care, medical facilities, and protection of juvenile offenders during pandemic.
Reiterated need for rehabilitation and humane treatment.
Significance:
Focused on welfare rights of juvenile offenders beyond punishment.
✅ Case 6: Santosh Kumar v. Union of India (2018)
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 108 of 2018 (SC)
Facts: Petitioner challenged harsh conditions of juvenile incarceration and bail procedures.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized bail preference for juveniles, focusing on rehabilitation rather than incarceration.
Stressed child rights under JJ Act and Juvenile Justice Board role.
Significance:
Highlighted bail and release principles for child offenders.
5. Additional Important Points
Juvenile Death Penalty: Abolished in India after 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand where juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without possibility of release.
Rehabilitation Focus: Juvenile offenders sent to Special Homes or Observation Homes, not jails.
Role of Child Welfare Committees (CWC): For children in need of care and protection, different from JJBs.
6. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Issue | Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Bachan Singh v. Punjab | Death penalty for juveniles | Juveniles exempt from death penalty |
| Shabnam v. Union of India | Trying juveniles as adults (16-18 yrs) | Valid with safeguards, preliminary board assessment required |
| Juvenile Justice Board v. Union of India | Timely constitution of JJBs | Courts mandated timely constitution and speedy trial |
| Re Kanu Sanyal | Juvenile trial as adult for serious offenses | Trial as adult upheld after assessment |
| Children’s Aid Society v. Union of India | Rights of juveniles during pandemic | Directed humane treatment and rehabilitation |
| Santosh Kumar v. Union of India | Bail for juveniles | Bail must be preferred, focusing on rehabilitation |
7. Conclusion
The Juvenile Justice Act in India represents a progressive legal framework focused on rehabilitation and reintegration of child offenders rather than harsh punishment. It recognizes:
The special vulnerability of children.
The importance of a specially constituted Juvenile Justice Board for trial.
The ability to try serious offenders aged 16-18 as adults, but only after careful assessment.
The judiciary’s strong role in protecting juvenile rights through procedural safeguards.
The overall emphasis remains on balancing justice with care, aiming to restore children back to society as responsible citizens.
RELATED Blog
0 comments