Beyond Bars and Beyond Years: Re-examining Juvenile Personhood in Light of Article 21

This Blog is Written by Arihant Chatterjee, 3rd Year, BBA LLB, Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata.

Introduction 

The term ‘Juvenile’ refers to a person who still possesses child-like qualities. ‘Delinquency’ refers to not adhering to social norms or not performing their duties properly, which may also include committing crimes or wrongs. ‘Justice’ refers to fairness, equity, and real respect given to people. It’s all about striving for moral righteousness in a world that is devoid of it. As per the Constitution of India, juveniles refer to people who have not attained the age of majority, meaning they are below 18 years of age and have committed a crime, whether heinous or not. They are referred to as juvenile offenders or juvenile delinquents. To cite an example, the minimum age for smoking in India is 18 years. Those who are below this age are referred to as minors or underage. The juvenile cases are tried in a juvenile court, which is a civil court but with different rules than an adult’s criminal court. However, in some cases, older juveniles are tried as adults in a criminal court. The Juvenile Justice is a system that deals with the legal rights of children who have broken the law. It is a branch of law that deals with youths aged between 10 and 18 who have committed a crime or who are suspected of committing a crime. According to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty except in accordance with a law. Right to life is fundamental to the development of all children, and children require protection from all forms of exploitation such as child labour, child trafficking and forced marriage, and need to be provided with access to essential goods and services including education, food, health care and a safe place to live. While Article 21 protects children from being exploited and ensures their well-being through the provision of basic goods and services, Article 21-A establishes that the right to education is a fundamental right for children between the ages of 6 and 14; therefore, the State is required to provide free and compulsory education for all children in the 6 to 14 age range.

Reasons for the Growth of the Problem of Juvenile Delinquency

 

• Socio-Economic Factors: A person’s family background is often a significant contributor to their delinquent behaviour as a juvenile in India. Children who lack access to the basic necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter) and do not have access to decent work opportunities are often forced to commit crimes to survive. A recent study conducted by the National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development (NIPCCD) observed that approximately 60% of all juveniles currently charged with committing a crime are from lowincome families. 
• Family Environment: Families have the greatest influence on a child and serve as the main source of socialisation for the child. A child learns how to behave and act through observing their parents. The lack of emotional support from parents, inconsistent discipline, exposure to violence in the home can create a situation in which adolescent children search for emotional support (belonging) and explore their own identity (self-exploration) through gangs and other risky behaviours. 
• Peer Influence: Another factor contributing to juvenile delinquency is peer influence, as teenagers have to cope with peer pressure, which sometimes leads to crimes. 
• Educational Barriers: Lack of proper qualitative education, high dropout rates, and poor educational facilities can also contribute to juvenile delinquency. Most of the juvenile delinquents were found to be either illiterate or had low educational qualifications, whereas a few of the juvenile delinquents had never stepped into a classroom.
• Substance Abuse: Substance abuse among teenagers is a major issue in India, as teenagers get easily addicted to drugs and alcohol due to the availability of these substances. 
• Juvenile Justice System: Contrary to the general perception, the juvenile justice system is also a contributing factor to recidivism, as there is a lack of rehabilitation facilities and proper attention given to the juvenile delinquents. 
• Media and Technology: The role played by the media and technology on young adults can never be overstated. Violence, unrealistic goals, and misconceptions about success lead to aggressive behaviours, which in turn lead to a proclivity towards crime.

Role of Judiciary in Juvenile Cases 

The role of the judiciary towards the juvenile justice system in India was marked by the revolutionary decisions taken during the 1980s, which have significantly impacted the way the legal system treats children who have committed offenses against the law. The Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1984) case marked the beginning of the landmark precedent on the retrospective effect of the beneficial juvenile justice laws. In this case, the Supreme Court held that when a juvenile commits an offense, if the juvenile matures during the course of the trial, the beneficial provisions of the juvenile justice laws should be applied. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the determination of the juvenile should not be based on the time the accused appears before the court but on the time the offense was committed by the juvenile. The key transformation was facilitated by the pioneering efforts of social activist Sheela Barse's public interest litigation cases, which culminated in two landmark judgments in 1986. Sheela Barse & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1986) was a case dealing with the inhumane treatment and conditions in which children below the age of 16 years were being detained in regular jails along with adult criminals. The Court issued comprehensive directions for the appointment of lawyers by State Legal Aid Boards to make weekly jail visits and the mandatory reporting requirements to the state governments regarding children's homes and inspections by District and Sessions Judges to safeguard the rights of juvenile offenders.

Challenges Faced in the Implementation of the Juvenile Laws 

• Infrastructure Gaps: Numerous Child Care Institutions (CCIs) across many states have insufficient child-centric facilities and personnel for successful implementation of the JJ Act. The Supreme Court also recognized this need when it expressed concern over the poor state of CCIs across the nation during litigation involving the exploitation of children in orphanages located in Tamil Nadu (State Of Tamil Nadu v Union of India, 2017).
• Delays in Processing Cases: Even though there are provisions for processing juvenile cases without delay, delays continue to be experienced in each of our systems. In Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2018) the Supreme Court ordered that states show evidence of making every effort to quickly process juvenile cases. 
• Limited Trained Staff: There are not enough trained workers in all areas of the juvenile justice process like police officers, social workers, counsellors and lawyers. The Supreme Court stated in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) that specialized training for workers in every sector of the provincial and federal government must be available.
• Age Determination Protocols: There are a number of established methods to determine a person's age by using the appropriate amount of documentary evidence rather than rely on the subjective view of an individual’s physical appearance. All courts must give the benefit of the doubt to the juvenile when determining age. 
• Institutional Infrastructure: The Courts have ordered those sufficient resources for juvenile services (i.e., observation homes, special homes, after-care organisations) be provided to comply with the mandate for juvenile services, and that there will be adequate staffing in those locations and facilities. 
• Legal Aid and Representation: To account for the vulnerability of juvenile accused, the Courts have ordered that there will be legal representation for juveniles in all cases and that legal paragraphs will regularly review their performance. 
• Training and Sensitisation: A number of judgments have recognised that there is a need to have judicial officers, police officers and child welfare officers receive specialised training to enable them to deal with juvenile matters in an appropriate manner.

Success Achieved So far 

The role of Supreme Court’s Judicial activism has impacted the legislative process in juvenile justice. The Sheela Barse cases provided a clearer basis for enacting the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and subsequently the later, more comprehensive Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Continuing decisions by the Court supporting the foundational principles of the juvenile justice system have ensured that there has been no regression to the changes made by the legislature to the act as a result of public outcry over highly publicized crimes committed by juvenile offenders. The amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act in 2015, which allows trials as adults of the 16- to 18-year-old age group in the case of heinous crimes, has been a major shift from the past, as observed by the decision in the case of Mother v. State of Karnataka & Another (2024). This was done despite the emphasis by the Court on rehabilitation and International Child Rights. Since 2015, the Supreme Court has continued to revise juvenile justice procedures set forth in the amended Juvenile Justice Act. The Supreme Court held that the three-month initial assessment time limitation imposed on a preliminary assessment in section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 should be perceived as directory as opposed to mandatory; therefore, due to the nature of the applicable penalty for failure to comply with the specified time limitation(s), all time limitations imposed by statute should be directory thereby preserving juvenile rights from being denied due to procedural delays.

Conclusion 

The way forward in the juvenile justice system requires a change of paradigm to a more holistic approach, with rehabilitation as a base and punishment as a ground. There is a need to recognize the potential of young offenders to change course to prevent a cycle of crime. In dealing with the root cause of delinquency, rehabilitation has to incorporate education, counselling, and skills development to be effective. There has to be a clear stance on punishment and accountability for serious offenses. There is a need to balance rehabilitation and punishment of serious offenses to deliver justice and protect society, with punishment being proportional to the offense to send a clear message that the behaviour will not be tolerated.