This Article is written by Gayathri Vishwanath, National University of Advanced Legal Studies.
Introduction to the Juvenile Justice Act
Juvenile Justice Act is a legal framework designed to address the treatment, protection and rehabilitation of children in conflict with the law and children in need of care and protection. The primary objective of the act is to ensure that juveniles are not as treated as adult criminals, but are instead provided with opportunities for reform and social integration. Before independence, juvenile offenders were often tried under the laws as adult criminals. However after 1850, there was the passing of the Apprentices Act which was a foundation for a legal framework to differently treat children under 15 for committing offences. Later, the Reformatory Schools Act of 1897 helped establish special institutions for juvenile offenders. Post independence, the Children Act of 1960 was adopted by a handful of the states, which emphasized the rehabilitation of juveniles over punishment. It established juvenile boards and special homes. However, after the passing of the Juvenile Justice Act in 1986, there was uniformity in the laws surrounding juvenile offenders and care of children in need of protection and welfare schemes. The statute was further amended in the year 2000 to align with the standards laid down by the UN’s Convention on the Rights of Child (UNCRC) of 1992, which expected a higher standard for punishment. It also brought other amendments like, a uniform age limit where all juveniles were defined as individuals below the age of 18, unlike the earlier legislations which defined a juvenile as a boy below 16 and a girl below the age of 18. It created a differentiation between children in conflict of the law and those in need of care.
The Reformative Approach to Juvenile Justice
This article will mainly deal with the category of children that are in conflict with the law, where we will analyze the need for reform of such children and the instances of need for punishment. Taking into consideration the reform approach, we can see that before the initial amendment in 2000, the Juvenile Justice Act was very reform oriented. It is mainly rooted in the belief that young offenders, even if aware of the consequences of their acts, are not fully developed mentally, hence are not fully capable of making rational and reasonable decisions. The principle behind reform is also that, since juveniles are still in their developmental stages, they are more likely to be malleable and susceptible to rehabilitation and consequent rehabilitation into the society. Internationally, the UNCRC of 1989 and Beijing rules, 1985 also advocate for child friendly justice systems. Some provisions like Article 3 of UNCRC established the “best interests” principle, where the child’s best interests must be the primary concern when making legal and administrative decisions. Coming to the Beijing Rules, Rules 13 and 19 suggest that authorities should avoid formal trials wherever possible using mediation, probation and counselling, to avoid traumatic experiences for juveniles, and hence easing the process of reintegration into society. However, since these come under International law, they are not binding on countries and their justice systems, and are merely suggestive in nature. India, hence, had a reform based approach for a long time, to align with international norms. Through the earlier versions of the statute, there was the establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards, composed of a magistrate and two social workers. Their main function was to assess the child’s background, circumstances and potential for reform. The importance of the existence of such Boards was to ensure that the process was informal and child friendly, to help in reducing the trauma they have to face and to keep the child’s autonomy intact. After being found guilt of committing certain offences, these children are given the opportunity to get rehabilitation in care homes, until they are ready for reintegration into society, or given community service to help them reform. Reform is important, as it reduces the repetition of crime, as reform helps address root problems like poverty, abuse, peer pressure etc., that affect these juveniles and lead them to a life of crime. It also helps reduce criminalism in children, as they won’t be exposed to the harsh conditions of prisons or to violent individuals like hardened criminals.
Shift Toward Punitive Measures Post-2012
The other approach we must consider is the punishment approach that the Juvenile Justice Act, post 2015 has seen a rise in. In 1992, the UNCRC was improvised upon, and the need for punishment of juveniles was discussed as an important need in judicial systems. India also implemented changes in it’s approach to treating juvenile criminals after an amendment in 2015. Even it’s initial amendment in 2000 was primarily focused on reform. However, after a brutal rape case in 2012, there was a pivotal change seen in the legal framework surrounding juveniles in India. In December 2012, Delhi saw outrage after the brutal rape and death of a girl in a moving bus, where she was gangraped by a group of men, one of whom was a minor. The Courts gave a strict punishment to adults involved, by sentencing them to death by hanging, which is the mode of giving death penalty in India. However, considering that one of the offenders was minor, the courts placed him in front of a Juvenile Justice Board and the board came to the decision of placing him in a reform home for a period of 3 years before deciding whether to reintegrate him into society under a new identity. This decision sparked public outrage, as the people believed that he didn’t deserve such a light sentence considering the graveness and seriousness of the offence he had committed. Post the Nirbhaya case, there were developments that led to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act in 2015. Taking into account the seriousness of the crime in Nirbhaya, the new Act had provisions for “trials as adults” for those aged between 16-18 that are accused of heinous crimes (e.g rape, murder etc.) There was a preliminary assessment provision that was included for Juvenile Justice Boards to determine if the minor should be tried in a regular court. The additional amendment in 2021 further classified crimes into “petty, serious and heinous”, with petty and serious crimes still having reformative measures in place, while heinous crimes could be tried as an adult. The main argument for the punishments being implemented for heinous crimes is that age must not be an excuse for a minor to commit heinous crimes and not be appropriately punished for it. A minor who is committing such a heinous offence, can be considered as an adult as they are clearly aware of the consequences and have committed the offence with the sufficient mental elemt and guilty mind (mens rea). Another argument for punishing juveniles is that, the possibility of a grave punishment and the process of trials and court proceedungs can act as a deterrance to crime. This is because it will discourage juveniles from engaging in violent crimes. The introduction of provisions to punish juveniles as adults in heinous crimes is also vital to ensure that juveniles do not exploit the status of being a juvenile or minor to their advantage and avoid harsh punishment. Post the passing of the amended JJ Act, there has been trials where a juvenile has been tried as an adult. In the Kathua Rape case, a juvenile of 17 years was tried as an adult for the gangrape and murder of an 8 year old girl. He was consequently sentenced to life imprisonment, marking a landmark strict verdict and proving that the court systems in India do not encourage leniency in sentencing of accused in serious cases.
Contrasting Reformative and Punitive Frameworks
The real question is which approach is ideal and more effective? The procedural differences between these two approaches reveal their fundamentally divergent orientations. Under the reformative framework, cases involving juvenile offenders are handled through informal, child-friendly proceedings before specialized Juvenile Justice Boards. The emphasis is on understanding the circumstances that led to the offense and creating individualized rehabilitation plans. Diversionary mechanisms like counseling, community service, and probation are preferred over institutionalization. When placement in observation or special homes is deemed necessary, the focus remains on education, vocational training, and psychological support aimed at reintegration into society. Conversely, the punitive approach follows more conventional criminal procedures when applied to juveniles accused of heinous crimes. The 2015 amendments established a preliminary assessment process where Juvenile Justice Boards evaluate whether a minor aged 16-18 should be tried in regular courts. If transferred to the adult system, these young offenders face the same legal processes as mature criminals, with the possibility of substantial prison sentences (though not the death penalty). This represents a dramatic departure from the protective ethos of the reformative model, bringing juveniles into contact with hardened criminals in mainstream correctional facilities. The theoretical justifications for each approach reveal competing conceptions of justice and child development. Reformative advocates argue from neuroscientific evidence showing that adolescent brains are not fully developed, particularly in areas governing impulse control and risk assessment. They contend that punitive measures fail to address the root causes of juvenile delinquency, which often stem from poverty, abuse, neglect, or mental health issues. The reformative model positions society as having failed these children first, and thus bearing responsibility for their rehabilitation rather than their punishment. Proponents of the punitive approach counter that justice must consider the rights of victims and society at large. They argue that certain crimes demonstrate a level of cruelty and premeditation that transcends age considerations, and that excessive leniency may erode public faith in the legal system. The punitive model also operates on deterrence theory, suggesting that the prospect of adult consequences may prevent some juveniles from engaging in serious criminal behavior. This perspective gained particular resonance in India following several brutal crimes committed by minors that captured national attention.
Practical Challenges and Comparative International Approaches
The implementation of these approaches has revealed significant practical challenges. The reformative model, while noble in theory, often suffers from inadequate infrastructure and systemic neglect. Many observation homes and special homes lack proper facilities, trained staff, or effective rehabilitation programs. Overcrowding and poor living conditions frequently undermine the intended therapeutic environment. Additionally, the informal nature of juvenile proceedings sometimes leads to inconsistencies in decision-making and inadequate due process protections. The punitive approach faces its own implementation dilemmas. The assessment process for determining whether to try a juvenile as an adult has been criticized for being subjective and potentially biased. Factors like the notoriety of the crime or the socioeconomic background of the accused may unduly influence these decisions. Moreover, placing juveniles in adult prisons raises serious human rights concerns and may increase the likelihood of recidivism by exposing impressionable youths to criminal networks and violent environments. Comparative international perspectives offer valuable insights into this debate. Countries like Norway and Germany maintain strongly reformative systems that have demonstrated success in reducing recidivism through intensive rehabilitation programs. The United States presents a mixed approach, with some states trying juveniles as adults for serious crimes while others emphasize restorative justice. England follows a middle path, with specialized youth courts for most cases but provisions for adult sentencing in extreme circumstances like murder. These global examples suggest that while pure reformative models may be ideal in theory, many legal systems incorporate some punitive elements for the most severe offenses.
Psychological Psychologicaland Societal Perception
The psychological and social impacts of these approaches differ markedly. Reformative interventions, when properly implemented, can redirect young lives and break cycles of crime and disadvantage. Successful rehabilitation saves societal costs in the long term by creating productive citizens rather than career criminals. However, victims and their families may perceive such approaches as unjustly lenient, particularly in cases involving violent or sexual crimes. The punitive model may satisfy immediate demands for justice but risks creating hardened offenders through traumatic prison experiences and the stigma of criminal records. Recent trends in India suggest an uneasy coexistence of these approaches. While the 2015 amendments introduced punitive measures, the system still maintains reformative mechanisms for the majority of juvenile cases. Data from the National Crime Records Bureau indicates an increase in the number of juveniles apprehended for serious crimes since 2015, though interpreting these statistics requires caution. The rise could reflect either an actual increase in juvenile crime or better reporting and recording of offenses. Notably, the percentage of juveniles tried as adults remains relatively small, suggesting that the reformative ethos continues to dominate actual practice despite the legislative changes.
Conclusion: Toward a Balanced Juvenile Justice System
In conclusion, the tension between reformative and punitive approaches in juvenile justice reflects fundamental questions about how society understands childhood, responsibility, and justice. While the reformative model aligns with progressive child rights principles, the punitive approach responds to legitimate societal demands for accountability. India’s current system represents an attempt to balance these competing imperatives, though the equilibrium remains imperfect. The challenge lies in creating a system that neither naively excuses serious crime nor cruelly discards young lives, but rather one that makes wise, compassionate distinctions between those who can be redeemed and those who must be restrained. In this delicate balance lies the measure of a just and humane society.
