A study by the India Justice Report (IJR) revealed that more than 55% of cases before Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs )were pending.

About the Report

• Title: “Juvenile Justice and Children in Conflict with the Law: A Study of Capacity at the Frontlines” published by India Justice Report (IJR)
• It examines how India’s juvenile justice system is equipped to deal with children in conflict with the law at the district and state level.
• The study covers 14 states and 2 UTs (including Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir) and draws from submissions by 362 Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs).

Key Findings from the IJR Study

• High Pendency of Cases: As of October 31, 2023, 55% of 100,904 cases before JJBs were pending. The pendency rate varies significantly across states, from 83% in Odisha to 35% in Karnataka.
• Vacancies in JJBs: Despite 92% of districts having constituted JJBs, 25% of the boards operate without a full bench, leading to increased backlogs. Each board, on average, is handling 154 pending cases annually.
• Inadequate Legal Aid: 30% of JJBs do not have an attached legal services clinic, impacting the provision of legal support to children in conflict with the law.
• Gender-Specific Deficits: Data from 292 districts shows that there are only 40 exclusive child care homes for girls, a stark limitation in gender-specific care.
• Transparency Issues: Over 250 RTI requests were filed to gather data from 21 states, but only 36% of responses were useful, indicating weak transparency.
• Absence of National-Level Data on JJBs: The report highlights the lack of a centralized data system similar to the National Judicial Data Grid for JJBs.
• Systemic Gaps and Constraints:
• • Inadequate data monitoring and funding constraints have hindered the implementation of juvenile justice, preventing effective oversight and management.
  • The lack of inter-agency coordination and data-sharing has led to gaps in service delivery and accountability within the system.

Legal and Institutional Framework for Children

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

• Provides the statutory framework for dealing with children in conflict with the law and children in need of care and protection.
• Amended in 2021 to strengthen adoption procedures and child welfare mechanisms.
• Repeal and Replacement: It replaced the earlier Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the older juvenile delinquency framework.
• Trial of Older Juveniles as Adults: The Act introduced a provision enabling children aged 16–18 years to be tried as adults if they are found to have committed heinous offences.
  • Heinous offence is defined as an offence carrying a minimum punishment of 7 years’ imprisonment.
  • Prior to 2015, all individuals below 18 years of age were treated uniformly as juveniles.
• Role of CARA: The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) was accorded statutory status as the nodal body for adoption-related matters.

Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)

• Statutory Basis: Section 4 of the  Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides for the establishment of the Juvenile Justice Board.
• Judicial Powers: The Board is vested with the powers of a criminal court as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Composition: A Judicial Magistrate and Two social workers, including at least one woman.
• Role of Experts: It includes the services of psychologists and sociologists to assess whether children aged 16–18 years accused of serious offences should be tried as adults.
• Tenure: Members hold office for a term of three years and may be reappointed for a maximum of two consecutive terms.

Child Welfare Committees (CWCs)

• Statutory Status: The Child Welfare Committee is a statutory body established under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
• Level of Functioning: It operates at the district level and forms a core pillar of India’s child protection system.
• Primary Role: The Committee acts as the principal authority for dealing with children who require care and protection.
• Nature of Powers: It functions as a quasi-judicial body, vested with legal authority to pass orders relating to the safety and welfare of children.
• Core Functions: The CWC is responsible for ensuring the care, safety, rehabilitation, and social reintegration of vulnerable and at-risk children.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Why These Findings Matter

• High pendency violates the principle of speedy trial.
• Delays hamper rehabilitation and reintegration of children.
• Prolonged institutionalisation causes psychological harm.
• Weak systems undermine public trust in the justice delivery system.
• Poor data limits evidence-based policymaking.

Recommendations for Systemic Improvement

• Establishing a National Data Grid: A child-centric National Data Grid should be established to integrate and standardise data across juvenile justice systems, ensuring that authorities regularly publish information about their operations related to children.
• Capacity Building and Filling Vacancies: The system should focus on addressing vacancies, especially in JJBs and child care institutions, and building capacity to ensure the efficient functioning of juvenile justice mechanisms.
• Enhancing Legal Aid: Ensuring legal services clinics are available at every JJB will ensure proper legal representation for children and improve access to justice.
• Strengthening Oversight Mechanisms: Increased inspections, staffing, and resources for Child Care Institutions (CCIs), along with legal services clinics at JJBs, are critical to improving the system.

DOWNLOAD PDF