Introduction:

Nearly a decade after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 came into force, India’s child-protection ecosystem continues to face serious structural challenges. The law was meant to create a system that is child-friendly, rehabilitative and firmly distinct from the adult criminal justice process. Yet, a new study by the India Justice Report (IJR), titled “Juvenile Justice and Children in Conflict with the Law: A Study of Capacity at the Frontlines” (released on 24 November 2023), reveals that the statutory vision remains only partially realised.

• • The report highlights an uncomfortable truth: despite progressive legislation, children in conflict with the law still encounter delays, weak infrastructure, understaffed institutions and unreliable data systems. These deficiencies undermine both rehabilitation and the broader goals of child protection. Understanding these gaps is critical for improving India’s justice delivery frameworks and ensuring that children one of the most vulnerable groups, are treated with dignity and fairness.

The Pendency Problem:

• • One of the most striking findings of the study is the sheer volume of pending cases before Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs). As of 31 October 2023, over 50,000 children were still awaiting decisions on their cases. Data from 362 JJBs showed that 55% of all registered cases remained pending.
  • This backlog directly contradicts the spirit of the JJ Act, which mandates speed and sensitivity. Justice delayed, in the context of children, often results in emotional stress, prolonged uncertainty, and disruption in education and family life. The report draws a tough comparison: children face consequences similar to adult undertrials, left waiting for a system that is supposed to protect them.

Vacancies and Non-Functional Benches

A functional JJ system depends on multidisciplinary benches. Each JJB should consist of a principal magistrate and two trained social workers—ensuring that legal decisions are balanced by psychological and social understanding. However, the study shows widespread non-compliance:

• • 24% of JJBs operate without a fully constituted bench.
  • Out of the 470 boards that responded to the study, 111 lacked full composition.
  • Only Odisha, Sikkim, and Jammu & Kashmir reported complete benches in every district.

Former Supreme Court Judge Madan B. Lokur described this situation as “worrying,” noting that vacancies extend beyond JJBs to child care institutions (CCIs) as well. Shortages undermine case hearings, rehabilitation planning and timely decision-making.

Infrastructure Gaps Across States:

1. Absence of Places of Safety

The JJ Act mandates “Places of Safety” for children aged 16–18 accused of heinous offences. These are essential because such children cannot be kept in regular observation homes. Yet, the report notes that:

• • • 14 states, including major ones like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and West Bengal, lack even a single such facility.

This creates a serious legal and operational vacuum.

2. Weak Access to Legal Aid

Each JJB must have a legal services clinic to ensure that children receive proper legal support. However:

• • • 30% of the 437 JJBs surveyed had no such clinic.

This means thousands of children face proceedings without appropriate legal guidance, weakening the fairness of the process.

3. Poor Medical Support in Child Care Institutions

The condition of CCIs is even more inadequate. In the 15 states that provided relevant data:

• • • Nearly 80% of CCIs lacked medical staff or doctors.

This is alarming because CCIs house children rescued from abuse, trafficking, abandonment, or conflict with the law—many of whom need immediate medical and psychological attention.

Weak Oversight and Monitoring

Oversight mechanisms exist on paper, but their implementation is patchy.

• • The JJ Act requires every JJB to inspect CCIs at least once a month.
  • Across 14 states and J&K, only 810 inspections were conducted against a mandated 1,992.

Under-inspected institutions often become vulnerable to rights violations, neglect and abuse. Previous judicial interventions, including the Supreme Court’s observations in Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages (2017), have repeatedly underscored the dangers of weak monitoring.

The Data Deficit

The report identifies lack of reliable data as one of the biggest structural weaknesses. While the adult criminal justice system has the National Judicial Data Grid, there is no central public database for juvenile cases.

To compile the report, IJR had to file:

• • 250+ RTIs across 28 states and 2 UTs
  • Of the 500+ replies received,
    • 11% were rejected, and
    • 24% received no response

Such opacity makes supervision irregular and accountability difficult. The juvenile justice structure is pyramidal, and the entire system depends on data flowing seamlessly from police stations and CCIs to district and state-level authorities. When data is scattered or unavailable, monitoring becomes episodic rather than continuous.

The report concludes that the gaps between legislative promises and ground realities remain wide. Instead of a protective, reform-oriented system, the juvenile justice machinery often ends up reflecting the same inefficiencies seen in the adult criminal justice system: pendency, poor documentation, and weak follow-up.

Assessing Broader Institutional Weaknesses:

1. Understaffed District Child Protection Units (DCPUs)

DCPUs are central to rescue, case management and rehabilitation. Yet many states face vacancies of:

• • • Protection officers
    • Counsellors
    • Outreach workers

The Ministry of Women and Child Development’s 2023 review showed vacancy levels above 30% in several states.

2. Pendency Before Child Welfare Committees (CWCs)

CWCs handle children in need of care and protection. Many face:

• • • High caseloads
    • Delayed social investigation reports
    • Few counsellors
    • Irregular sittings

The NCPCR’s 2022 social audit confirmed these concerns.

3. Weak Multidisciplinary Support for JJBs

Sections 4 and 8 of the JJ Act require psychologists, probation officers and social workers to support JJBs. Yet implementation remains patchy. A 2021 Delhi High Court observation noted the absence of adequate staff needed to prepare individual care plans.

4. Inadequate Monitoring of CCIs

After the 2021 amendment, District Magistrates were given the responsibility of oversight. However, compliance remains uneven across states, echoing earlier Supreme Court concerns about unregistered or poorly functioning homes.

5. Fragmented Coordination Across Departments

Rescue, rehabilitation and reintegration require coordination between:

• • • Police
    • Labour departments
    • Health and education departments
    • DCPUs
    • CWCs
    • JJBs

The Baal Swaraj portal (2021–23) flagged significant gaps in cross-reporting and follow-up between agencies.

Strengthening Convergence and Systemic Integration:

1. District-Level Convergence Committees: Statutory committees led by District Magistrates can integrate actions of CWCs, JJBs, DCPUs, police and health departments. Karnataka’s 2023 model shows better outcomes in tracking and rehabilitating missing children.

2. Digital Integration and Real-Time Updates

Linking databases like:

• • • TrackChild 2.0
    • Baal Swaraj
    • CCTNS (police database)

will ensure all institutions view the same case information. MWCD updates in 2024 showed child recovery rates improve when such integration happens.

3. Professional Training for Statutory Bodies: Mandatory NIPCCD-certified training for JJB and CWC members can ensure uniform interpretation of the JJ Rules, better decision-making and child-sensitive procedures.

4. Regular Independent Inspections: Quarterly social audits and third-party evaluations, guided by the NCPCR’s 2021 guidelines, are essential to ensure transparency in CCIs.

5. Unified Financing: Pooling budgets under the Child Protection Services Scheme with funds from health, labour and education departments will support integrated planning. The 15th Finance Commission’s grants provide states with an opportunity to adopt convergence-based models.

Conclusion:

India’s juvenile justice framework, built on progressive law and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15(3) and 21, aims to protect children and support their rehabilitation. But the new findings from the India Justice Report show how far the ground reality still lags. Pendency, vacancies, weak oversight, poor infrastructure and lack of real-time data continue to undermine the system’s core principles.

Strengthening this framework demands more than patchwork fixes. It requires a digitally integrated, professionally trained and jointly accountable ecosystem—one where every institution works in sync. Only then can the juvenile justice system move closer to its intended purpose: ensuring every child receives timely, compassionate and fair treatment from the state.

UPSC/PCS Main Question:
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 promises a child-friendly justice system, yet structural weaknesses continue to affect implementation. Discuss the major institutional and administrative gaps and suggest reforms for improving convergence across child-protection bodies.