Youth Justice And Juvenile Courts
Youth Justice and Juvenile Courts: Overview
Juvenile justice in India deals with offences committed by children and adolescents. The system focuses on rehabilitation and reform, rather than punishment.
Key Legal Framework
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Governs children below 18 years who are in conflict with law.
Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) handles criminal offences by juveniles.
Children in need of care and protection are handled by Child Welfare Committees (CWC).
Emphasizes rehabilitation, social reintegration, and child-friendly procedures.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
Replaced earlier Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
Introduced provisions for trial of heinous offences by juveniles aged 16–18.
Key Principles
Best interest of the child.
Non-stigmatizing procedures.
Rehabilitation and reintegration, not punishment.
Separate juvenile courts and observation homes.
Detailed Case Laws
1. In Re: Sheela Barse (1986)
Facts: Highlighted widespread abuse and detention of juveniles in observation homes.
Issue: Conditions of juvenile homes and rights of juveniles in custody.
Judgment: Supreme Court issued guidelines for humane treatment, regular inspection, and education for juveniles.
Significance: Laid foundation for child rights in correctional institutions.
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts: Death penalty case involving a minor in joint offences.
Issue: Whether juveniles can be tried for capital offences.
Judgment: Supreme Court emphasized age verification and separate treatment for juveniles.
Significance: Strengthened principle that juveniles should not face harsh punishments intended for adults.
3. S.N. Sharma v. Union of India (1990)
Facts: Juvenile accused in a theft and robbery case.
Issue: Proper procedure for trial in Juvenile Courts.
Judgment: Court clarified that juveniles should be tried in a separate, non-intimidating environment, with due consideration to rehabilitation.
Significance: Reinforced juvenile-specific trial procedures.
4. Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1985)
Facts: Highlighted child labour and juvenile delinquency.
Issue: Rights of working children and preventive measures for juvenile crime.
Judgment: Court emphasized education and social welfare as preventive measures.
Significance: Broadened juvenile justice beyond punishment, including preventive rehabilitation.
5. Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. (2006)
Facts: Juvenile accused in a heinous crime aged 17–18 years.
Issue: Whether tried as juvenile or adult.
Judgment: Supreme Court ruled that juvenile boards must determine age carefully; juveniles cannot be automatically tried as adults.
Significance: Underlines importance of age verification in serious offences.
6. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts: Juvenile involved in repeated petty offences.
Issue: Role of Juvenile Justice Board in repeated offences.
Judgment: Court held that rehabilitation programs and counseling must be primary response, not detention.
Significance: Reinforced rehabilitation-first approach for juvenile repeat offenders.
7. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (2010)
Facts: Juveniles arrested in conflict with law but remanded in adult prisons.
Issue: Placement of juveniles in adult prisons.
Judgment: Supreme Court directed strict separation of juvenile and adult prisoners, ensuring safety and welfare of children.
Significance: Prevents exposure to adult criminal influence, protecting juvenile welfare.
Key Takeaways
Juveniles are tried separately from adults, focusing on reform rather than punishment.
Age verification is crucial, especially in heinous offences (16–18 years).
Juvenile Justice Board and Child Welfare Committees are central institutions.
Rehabilitation, education, and reintegration are primary goals.
Courts have consistently emphasized humane treatment, non-stigmatizing procedures, and protection of rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments