Rethinking Juvenile Justice in India: When Protection Becomes a Paradox

Beepat and Naresh were just two ordinary men trying to do the right thing. When they saw two teenagers lingering near the entrance of a women’s public toilet, seemingly obstructing access, they spoke up—perhaps expecting nothing more than a shrug or a few muttered words in response. Instead, what they got was a knife. 

On April 29, 2025, that everyday act of speaking out turned violent in Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. The two juveniles, enraged by the confrontation, attacked Beepat and Naresh, leaving one with deep gashes on his head and shoulder, the other with a critical abdominal wound. As the victims were rushed to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital and a case was registered, the police launched a massive investigation, eventually tracking down the attackers with the help of over 100 CCTV cameras. During interrogation, the teenagers confessed to being under the influence of drugs and alcohol and admitted they were planning to snatch near the toilet when the confrontation occurred.  

This disturbing incident forces us to revisit an uncomfortable but necessary question: How should society respond when juveniles commit serious, even life-threatening, crimes? India’s juvenile justice system has long walked the tightrope between protection and accountability. With successive amendments—most notably in 2015 and 2021—and the judiciary’s continued emphasis on rehabilitation, the intent has always been clear: children must be given a second chance. But with rising incidents of violent juvenile crime, especially involving older teens, the gap between legal philosophy and public sentiment is beginning to show.  

The Juvenile Justice system in India has not remained static—it has transformed significantly over the past two decades in response to changing societal needs and rising concerns around juvenile crime. The shift began in earnest with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which replaced the earlier 2000 version. The 2015 Act aimed to be more responsive, both to the needs of children in conflict with the law and to public demand for stricter accountability, especially after the outcry following the 2012 Nirbhaya case, where one of the accused was a minor.  

Among the most notable changes in the 2015 Act was the categorization of offenses, dividing them into petty, serious, and heinous. For the first time, the law allowed juveniles aged 16 to 18, if accused of heinous crimes, to be tried as adults, but only after a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). This marked a significant departure from the earlier welfare-centric approach and introduced a more nuanced understanding of juvenile culpability.  

The 2015 Act also streamlined adoption procedures, granted statutory backing to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), and made registration of child care institutions mandatory, adding legal structure to child protection efforts. Yet, gaps in implementation and resource limitations often dulled the intended impact of these reforms. 

 To further refine the system, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, was introduced. This amendment transferred the power to issue adoption orders from courts to District Magistrates (DMs) to speed up processes and reduce legal backlog. It also broadened the definition of “serious offenses”, including those with a maximum punishment of over seven years, even if the minimum sentence was below seven. However, this reclassification led to confusion and concern, particularly because some offenses punishable between three and seven years were made non-cognizable, raising questions about the state’s ability to effectively register and investigate such cases. 

 Recognizing this concern, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2022 was introduced to reverse this decision, proposing that all offenses carrying three years or more in punishment be treated as cognizable. Though its current status is unclear, the very proposal reflects an ongoing tension within the system—how to protect children from systemic abuse while ensuring justice for victims of juvenile-perpetrated crimes. 

 This complex legal trajectory lays the groundwork for the pressing need to reassess how India handles children in conflict with the law, not just on paper, but in the unpredictable, often volatile realities of everyday life. 

 India’s judiciary has consistently walked the fine line between legal reformation and social protection when it comes to juveniles in conflict with the law. While public outrage often demands swift and harsh punishment, especially in cases involving violent crimes, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the core principles of the Juvenile Justice Act, t—focusing on rehabilitation, not retribution. 

 A key principle upheld by the Court is the "claim of juvenility", which can be raised at any stage of legal proceedings—even after conviction and sentencing. Courts have been directed to proactively verify the age of the accused and entertain claims of juvenility without delay, reflecting a strong commitment to protecting children’s rights. This was starkly illustrated in January 2025, when the Supreme Court ordered the release of a man who had already spent 25 years in prison for a crime he committed at age 14. The Court not only acknowledged systemic failure but also observed that children often become “inheritors of crime”—shaped by neglect, poverty, abuse, and addiction, more than a conscious criminal intent. 

 Equally important is the Court’s emphasis on the "principle of a fresh start", which aims to ensure that a child’s criminal record does not hinder their prospects. Except in specific, severe cases, past offenses must be expunged to allow the child a genuine second chance. This approach stems from the understanding that reformation is more effective than incarceration, particularly during the formative years of life. 

 In addition, the Supreme Court has clarified the role of preliminary assessments by the Juvenile Justice Board, particularly for juveniles aged 16–18 accused of heinous crimes. The Court ruled that any appeal against the JJB’s decision—whether to try the juvenile as a child or as an adult—must be taken to the Children’s Court, thereby creating a clear appellate path within the juvenile justice system. 

 Despite these child-centric judgments, the public perception of juvenile justice often remains skeptical, especially in high-profile cases involving serious violence. The judiciary, therefore, carries a dual burden: protecting the legal rights of minors while also navigating the emotional and moral expectations of a society that increasingly questions the adequacy of the existing system. This tension underscores the urgent need for judicial clarity, empathetic outreach, and systemic coordination between courts, administrators, and child welfare institutions. 

 While the legal framework surrounding juvenile justice has evolved significantly, its implementation has faced numerous challenges that continue to undermine the system’s effectiveness. The Juvenile Justice Act was designed with the best interests of the child at its core, but the gaps in resources, infrastructure, and specialized knowledge have made it difficult to achieve the intended reforms on the ground. 

 A major concern is the shortage of trained professionals and specialized institutions to manage the rehabilitation and welfare of juveniles. Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), which play a crucial role in deciding the fate of minors in conflict with the law, often suffer from understaffing, a lack of adequate training, and sometimes, a lack of sensitivity to the nuances of juvenile crime. In many instances, these institutions struggle to balance the welfare aspect with the need for accountability, often leading to inconsistent a, nd at times, inadequate outcomes. 

 The empowerment of District Magistrates (DMs) through the 2021 amendments, intended to expedite adoption processes and streamline administrative functions, has raised concerns about the competence of administrative officers to handle complex juvenile justice issues. DMs, typically not trained in juvenile justice matters, are tasked with significant responsibilities, including monitoring child care institutions and making decisions regarding adoption. This shift toward administrative efficiency risks overshadowing the rehabilitative purpose of the system, as decisions may become more procedural than child-centric. 

 Another critical issue is funding. Many states struggle with adequate funding for juvenile justice initiatives, leading to overcrowded observation homes and poorly managed reformatories. Institutional care, a key aspect of the Act, remains far from ideal in many areas, with children often living in subpar conditions that may hinder their reform. Without adequate resources to implement the law effectively, the gap between the law’s intent and its impact continues to widen. 

 Public perception of the juvenile justice system is also deeply influenced by high-profile cases like the one in Gulabi Bagh, which often spark outrage over the perceived leniency extended to juvenile offenders. The public often sees juveniles who commit violent crimes as deserving of the same consequences as adults, fueling a growing demand for harsher punishments. This rising public frustration further complicates the efforts of the legal system to advocate for rehabilitation and reintegration, making it harder for the juvenile justice system to maintain its focus on reform. 

 This disconnect between the law’s child-centric principles and the public’s call for accountability is perhaps the greatest challenge facing India’s juvenile justice system today. As juvenile crime continues to evolve, especially with the influence of drugs and alcohol as seen in the Gulabi Bagh incident, the system must ad, pt—balancing the need for societal protection with the rights and rehabilitation of young offenders. The solutions to these challenges lie not just in legislative amendments, but in improving the infrastructure, resources, and mindset with which juvenile justice is administered. 

 The growing concerns about juvenile crime in India, particularly in cases where violence is involved, underscore the need for a more nuanced approach to juvenile justice. While the juvenile justice system was designed with rehabilitation and reintegration in mind, the reality of rising drug addiction, gang involvement, and violent crime among juveniles requires a revised and more comprehensive strategy. Moving forward, India must seek a balance—one that does not sacrifice the principles of welfare and reform but also addresses the need for accountability in cases of serious offenses. 

 The key to this balance lies in early intervention and prevention. Juvenile delinquency often stems from a web of social, economic, and psychological factors, including family instability, substance abuse, poverty, and a lack of education. Addressing these root causes should be a central focus of the juvenile justice system. Community outreach programs, drug rehabilitation initiatives, and mental health services must become integral parts of juvenile justice policies, aiming to intervene before a minor reaches the stage of committing serious offenses. 

 Moreover, specialized training for key stakeholders, including judges, lawyers, and District Magistrates, is crucial. DMs, while well-meaning in their efforts to expedite processes, must be equipped with the knowledge and resources necessary to make informed decisions regarding juvenile cases. Specialized training programs can help them understand the nuances of juvenile behavior, the potential for reform, and the long-term impact of their decisions on a child’s life. 

 Strengthening child protection infrastructure is another critical step. The establishment of adequate rehabilitation centers, foster care systems, and community-based initiatives can ensure that juveniles are not just held accountable but are given a fair chance at rehabilitation. These institutions should focus not only on housing children but also on providing education, counseling, and vocational training to reintegrate juveniles into society with the skills necessary to lead productive lives. 

 Equally important is enhancing the role of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in assessing juvenile cases. The Board must have access to psychological evaluations and behavioral assessments to better determine the level of culpability and the potential for rehabilitation in each case. Juvenile justice should not be a one-size-fits-all system, but rather one that tailors its approach to the individual circumstances of each case. 

 Finally, judicial clarity and transparency are needed to ensure that the public has a better understanding of the juvenile justice process. While the public may continue to feel anger over violent acts committed by juveniles, the judiciary must communicate clearly why certain decisions are made, based on both legal principles and evidence. Transparent communication can help build trust in the system and reduce public frustration, which often leads to calls for harsher punishments. 

 In conclusion, while the juvenile justice system faces significant challenges, these can be overcome with a balanced approach that emphasizes both accountability and rehabilitation. By focusing on early intervention, specialized training, and strengthening the infrastructure of child protection services, India can pave the way for a more effective and humane system. This system will not only serve the child's best interests but also ensure society's safety and security, truly achieving justice for all. 

The tragic incident in Gulabi Bagh serves as a stark reminder of the complexity surrounding juvenile crime in India. It forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about the vulnerabilities of ordinary citizens, the role of addiction and socio-economic conditions in juvenile delinquency, and the pressing need for a more effective juvenile justice system. As the legal and social landscape continues to evolve, it is clear that the current system requires deeper introspection and reform. 

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act has laid the groundwork for a system that balances the welfare of children with the need for accountability. However, its practical application has faced significant hurdles, ranging from inadequate resources and training to societal demands for harsher punishment in high-profile cases. The introduction of amendments, such as those seen in the 2021 revisions, shows a willingness to adapt. Yet, these changes need to be followed by tangible action that strengthens the infrastructure of child welfare, improves the competence of the officials handling juvenile cases, and ensures that every juvenile in conflict with the law has access to the support and rehabilitation they deserve. 

As we reflect on this evolving issue, it is important to remember that juveniles are not inherently criminals; rather, they are products of their circumstances. With the right interventions, support systems, and opportunities for reform, many can be rehabilitated and reintegrated as productive members of society. The ultimate goal of juvenile justice should not be retribution but the restoration of young lives to their rightful path.  

A holistic approach to juvenile justice that addresses the root causes of delinquency, such as addiction, poverty, and family breakdown, will not only reduce the risk of future crimes but also offer a brighter future for at-risk youth. The legal system, child welfare agencies, and society as a whole must work together to create an environment where juveniles are given the tools to learn, grow, and ultimately become responsible citizens. 

 India stands at a crossroads. Will we continue to rely on punitive measures that fail to address the underlying causes of juvenile crime, or will we take the necessary steps to reform and enhance the system in a way that truly prioritizes rehabilitation, prevention, and justice for all? The answer lies in our collective commitment to empathizing with the youth, understanding the forces that shape their lives, and creating a justice system that fosters growth and second chances.