Context:
The India Justice Report (IJR) recently published a focused study titled “Juvenile Justice and Children in Conflict with the Law: A Study of Capacity at the Frontlines”. The report evaluates the capacity of institutions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as of 31 October 2023, drawing on parliamentary responses, a year-long Right to Information (RTI) inquiry, and state‐wise data.
Major Findings of the Report:
1. High Pendency of Cases
o As of Oct 31, 2023, 55% of the 1,00,904 cases before 362 Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) were still pending.
o Only about 45,097 cases were disposed of during the reference period.
o The pendency rate varies widely across states: for example, Odisha shows as high as 83%, while Karnataka has 35%.
2. Institutional & Human Resource Gaps
o 24% of JJBs operate without a full bench (i.e., missing either the principal magistrate or the two social worker members, one of whom must be a woman).
o 30% of JJBs lack an attached legal services clinic, limiting access to legal aid for children in conflict with law.
3. Deficient Infrastructure & Oversight
o There are 319 Observation Homes, 41 Special Homes, and 40 Places of Safety nationally, but 14 states (plus J&K) lack any “place of safety” for children aged 16–18 accused of heinous crimes.
4. Lack of Reliable and Transparent Data
o The report notes a glaring absence of a centralised, child‑centric data system. Unlike mainstream courts (which use the National Judicial Data Grid), juvenile justice lacks a unified, publicly accessible data grid.
5. State-Level Disparities
o Although 92% of India’s 765 districts have constituted JJBs, the effectiveness varies drastically across states.
Implications:
The high pendency suggests that children in conflict with law are often stuck in legal limbo, which may lead to extended institutionalisation and psychological harm.
· Without a full bench or adequate legal aid, the quality of hearing and adjudication for children could be compromised.
· Weak infrastructure in CCIs and lack of sufficient oversight might mean rehabilitation is not happening effectively, raising the risk of re-offending.
Recommendations:
1. Strengthen JJB Capacity
o Ensure that all JJBs have full benches (principal magistrate + two social workers, including one woman) as mandated.
2. Improve Institutional Infrastructure
o Establish “place of safety” homes in all states, especially for older adolescents (16–18).
o Expand Child Care Institutes for girls, and create age‑appropriate, offence-sensitive institutions.
3. Develop a Central Data Grid
o Set up a National Juvenile Justice Data Grid analogous to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), to collect, standardise, and publish data (caseload, disposals, recidivism, capacity).
4. Boost Legal Aid and Counsel
o Attach legal services clinics to all JJBs; ensure children have access to lawyers and legal counseling.
o Provide training to legal aid lawyers in child-sensitive adjudication and restorative justice principles.
Conclusion:
The IJR’s "Study of Capacity at the Frontlines" offers a sobering assessment: a decade after the Juvenile Justice Act (2015), the institutional architecture is not fully equipped to deliver timely, fair, and rehabilitative justice to children in conflict with the law. The report’s findings demand urgent policy interventions — strengthening capacity, improving data systems, and ensuring that the juvenile justice system truly upholds the “best interests of the child.”
