Facts for UPSC Mains
Gaps in Juvenile Justice System in India
- 22 Nov 2025
- 8 min read
Why in News?
A first-of-its-kind study by the India Justice Report (IJR), titled “Juvenile Justice and Children in Conflict with the Law,” highlights significant challenges in India’s juvenile justice system, delaying justice for children in conflict with the law.
What are the Critical Gaps Highlighted by the India Justice Report in the Juvenile Justice System?
- High Pendency of Cases: Over 55% of cases before Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) were pending as of October, 2023.
- Pendency ranged from 83% in Odisha to 35% in Karnataka. On an average, 154 cases remained pending with each JJB annually.
- Structural Gaps in JJB Constitution: 24% of JJBs were not fully constituted, affecting quorum, decision-making, and timely hearings. 30% of JJBs lack a legal services clinic, weakening timely legal representation for children in conflict with law.
- Weak RTI Response Culture: Of the 500+ RTI responses, 11% were rejected, 24% received no reply, and only 36% provided complete information, revealing a weak transparency ecosystem.
- Systemic Administrative Weaknesses: Lack of inter-agency coordination, weak data-sharing, and poor monitoring mechanisms weaken the decentralised architecture of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- Absence of a Child-Centric Data Grid: Experts highlighted the need for a National Data Grid for juvenile justice to ensure timely data flow and effective oversight across police, Department of Women and Child Development, State Child Protection Society (SCPS) and the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA).
What is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?
- Background: Enacted in 2015, the Act replaced the Juvenile Delinquency Law and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act) 2000 to create a child-centric justice system for both children in conflict with the law (CICL) and those in need of care and protection (CNCP).
- It replaces earlier adoption laws—the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890—to establish a uniform and accessible adoption system for all communities.
- Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs): JJBs, constituted under Section 4 of JJ Act, 2015, must be established by state governments in every district to handle all cases involving children in conflict with the law.
- Each JJB includes a Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate and two social workers (one woman), ensuring child-friendly procedures focused on rehabilitation over punishment.
- Trial of Juveniles for Heinous Crimes: Allows juveniles aged 16–18 years to be tried as adults for heinous offences, after assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) ensuring a balance between child rights and public safety.
- Empowering CARA: The Act makes the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) a statutory body responsible for regulating and monitoring both in-country and inter-country adoptions.
- Child Care Institutions (CCIs): All Child Care Institutions, whether run by the government or NGOs, must be compulsorily registered within six months of the Act’s commencement.
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act 2021: Crimes against children under the “Other Offences Against Children” section of the JJ Act, 2015 that carry 3–7 years of imprisonment will now be treated as non-cognisable.
- To speed up adoption cases, the power to issue adoption orders has been shifted from courts to the district magistrate.
What Measures are Needed to Reform the Juvenile Justice System in India?
- Strengthening Institutional Infrastructure: Mandate timely filling of vacancies in JJBs and CWCs to ensure quorum, and link each JJB with a dedicated Legal Services Clinic to provide free legal representation from the start.
- Focusing on Rehabilitation and Reintegration: Shift focus from custody to rehabilitation through better vocational training, education, and mental health support in CCIs, and strengthen post-care systems to ensure successful reintegration and prevent recidivism.
- Enhancing Data Transparency: Create a centralized, public-facing data portal to track JJB cases, monitor pendency, and follow each child’s progress, ensuring stronger accountability.
Conclusion
A decade after its enactment, systemic failures like high pendency, infrastructural gaps, and a lack of data transparency are crippling the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, undermining its child-centric vision.
|
Drishti Mains Question: Q. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, was a paradigm shift from a welfare-based to a rights-based approach. Critically examine the challenges that hinder the realization of its objectives. |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is the primary function of a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)?
JJBs, constituted under Section 4 of the JJ Act, 2015, are the principal authorities for handling all cases of children in conflict with law, focusing on rehabilitation and ensuring a child-friendly judicial process.
2. What was the overall pendency rate reported by the IJR for JJB cases?
The IJR found 55% pendency in cases before Juvenile Justice Boards (as of 31 October 2023), with wide state variation (Odisha 83%, Karnataka 35%).
3.What are the main institutional deficits highlighted by the IJR?
Key deficits include 24% of JJBs not fully constituted, 30% lacking legal services clinics, staff vacancies in CCIs, and weak inter-agency coordination and data-sharing.
UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year Question (PYQ)
Prelims
Q. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
- Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.
- A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (2021)
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither I nor 2
Ans: (c)
Mains
Q. Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (2021)
Q. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)
