Introduction
Childhood and adolescence are stages of rapid physical, emotional, psychological and social development. Behaviour during these stages may be unstable, experimental and strongly influenced by family, peers, education, neighbourhood and social circumstances. Consequently, when a child engages in conduct prohibited by criminal law, the legal response cannot automatically be identical to the response applicable to an adult offender.
Child criminology seeks to understand children who engage in delinquent or criminal behaviour and the circumstances that contribute to such conduct. It examines not merely the offence but also the child, the family, the social environment, developmental characteristics and institutional conditions surrounding the behaviour. Juvenile delinquency is therefore not simply a question of whether a child has violated a criminal prohibition; it is also a question of why the child entered into conflict with law and what can be done to prevent repetition.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was enacted with an expressly child-centred objective.1 Its long title refers to the care, protection, development, treatment and social reintegration of children and emphasises a child-friendly approach, the best interests of children and rehabilitation.2 The legislation came into force on 15 January 2016.3
The significance of the Act lies in its attempt to combine two apparently competing objectives. On the one hand, society has a legitimate interest in responding to offences committed by children and in protecting victims and the public. On the other hand, children possess developmental capacities and vulnerabilities that justify a specialised system of justice. The Act therefore establishes separate mechanisms for children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection.4
The Act’s institutional structure includes the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Children’s Courts, Child Care Institutions and other authorities and agencies.5 Its framework also provides for rehabilitation and social reintegration through measures such as restoration, sponsorship, foster care, adoption, aftercare and institutional services.6
The legislation is consequently best understood not merely as a criminal statute but as a comprehensive child-protection and social-rehabilitation framework.
Concept and scope of child criminology
Child criminology may broadly be described as the systematic study of unlawful, antisocial or delinquent behaviour involving children and adolescents. It draws upon criminology, psychology, sociology, social work, law, education and developmental studies.
Traditional criminology frequently concentrated on the offender and the offence. Contemporary child criminology adopts a wider approach. It asks:
1. What factors contribute to juvenile offending?
2. How does family structure influence delinquent behaviour?
3. What is the influence of peer groups?
4. How do poverty, deprivation and social exclusion contribute to offending?
5. How do psychological and developmental characteristics influence behaviour?
6. What effect does institutionalisation have upon children?
7. Can early intervention prevent repeated offending?
8. What form of legal intervention is most consistent with the child’s welfare and social reintegration?
The distinction between an adult offender and a child in conflict with law is fundamental. A child may possess sufficient understanding to appreciate that certain conduct is wrong, yet developmental immaturity may affect impulse control, risk assessment, susceptibility to peer influence and the ability to anticipate long-term consequences.
Child criminology therefore supports a movement away from the simplistic proposition that punishment is the primary response to juvenile offending. Instead, it encourages an assessment of the child within the social and developmental circumstances in which the offence occurred.
Juvenile delinquency: meaning and characteristics
Juvenile delinquency generally refers to unlawful behaviour committed by persons below the age prescribed by juvenile justice legislation. Under the Indian juvenile justice framework, a “child” is a person who has not completed eighteen years of age.7
The Act uses the expression “child in conflict with law” rather than simply “juvenile offender”.8 This terminology is significant. It shifts attention from an identity-based description of the child as a criminal to a situation-based description of a child who has come into conflict with the law. Juvenile delinquency can take several forms, including theft and property-related offences, assault and physical violence, participation in group offences, substance-related conduct, cyber-related offending, sexual offences, robbery and other serious offences, and offences influenced by organised or peer groups.
The causes are equally diverse. Family conflict, neglect, abuse, school exclusion, poverty, substance exposure, peer pressure, unemployment within the family, neighbourhood violence and digital influences may interact in producing delinquent conduct. The Act’s architecture reflects the understanding that a child’s offending behaviour should be assessed in its social and individual context rather than through the offence alone.
Criminological theories of juvenile delinquency
A. Classical theory
Classical criminology is traditionally associated with thinkers such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.9 It emphasises rational choice, responsibility and deterrence. According to the classical approach, individuals generally possess the capacity to choose between lawful and unlawful conduct, and punishment may discourage offending. Applied to juvenile delinquency, however, classical assumptions require modification. Children may not possess the same degree of maturity, foresight or rational decision-making capacity as adults. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to impulsive decisions and peer influence.
The Juvenile Justice Act consequently does not treat children as miniature adults. Even when the Act permits a special process for certain sixteen-to-eighteen-year-old children accused of heinous offences, the preliminary assessment focuses on mental and physical capacity, the ability to understand consequences and the circumstances surrounding the offence.10 Thus, the Act incorporates accountability without completely adopting the adult-oriented punitive model.
B. Positivist theory
Positivist criminology challenged the assumption that crime is simply a product of free choice. It emphasises biological, psychological and social factors that may influence offending. Modern juvenile justice has largely moved away from crude biological explanations of criminality, but the broader positivist insight remains important: unlawful conduct may be influenced by circumstances beyond the immediate act.
In the juvenile context, relevant factors may include psychological difficulties, developmental immaturity, exposure to violence, family dysfunction, neglect, substance abuse, educational exclusion, social deprivation and peer influence. The social investigation and assessment mechanisms contemplated under the juvenile justice framework are consistent with the idea that the causes and circumstances surrounding the child’s behaviour must be understood before an appropriate response is determined.11
C. Psychological theory
Psychological approaches examine individual development, personality, emotional regulation, cognitive processes and behavioural problems. Children may respond to trauma, abuse, neglect or unstable family environments through aggression, withdrawal, substance use or other harmful behaviours. A child who repeatedly encounters violence may come to regard violence as an ordinary method of resolving disputes.
The psychological approach therefore supports counselling, mental-health assessment, behavioural intervention, education and individualised care. This perspective is particularly relevant to the concept of an individual care plan, which is intended to respond to the developmental, emotional, educational and social needs of the child rather than applying a uniform intervention to every case.12 The Model Rules describe an individual care plan as a comprehensive development plan addressing needs such as health, emotional and psychological development, education, protection, social mainstreaming and life skills.13
D. Differential association theory
Edwin H. Sutherland’s differential association theory explains criminal behaviour substantially through social interaction. Individuals may learn techniques, motives, attitudes and rationalisations for offending through interaction with others.14 This theory has particular relevance to juvenile delinquency because adolescents frequently attach significant importance to peer groups. A child surrounded by delinquent peers may learn that theft, violence or other unlawful conduct is acceptable or even desirable.
The implication for juvenile justice is that simply punishing the individual child may not address the social environment responsible for the behaviour.
Effective rehabilitation therefore requires positive peer relationships, education, vocational training, family intervention, counselling, constructive recreational activities and community integration.
E. Social learning theory
Social learning theory develops the proposition that behaviour may be acquired through observation, imitation, reinforcement and interaction.15 A child exposed to repeated demonstrations of violence may imitate violent conduct, particularly where violence appears to produce social status or material rewards.
Digital media and online communities have added a new dimension to social learning. Children may encounter harmful behavioural models through online platforms, although media exposure alone should never be treated as a sufficient explanation for criminal behaviour. The appropriate response is therefore not merely restriction but the creation of healthier environments in which children can learn constructive social behaviour.
F. Strain theory
Robert K. Merton’s strain theory associates deviance with the tension between socially valued goals and the legitimate means of achieving them.16 Although the theory was developed in a broader context, its principles can illuminate certain forms of juvenile delinquency. Children experiencing severe economic deprivation may observe consumer lifestyles that appear unattainable through legitimate means. A child may consequently be exposed to pressure to obtain money, status or material possessions through unlawful means.
However, poverty must never be equated with criminality. Economic deprivation is a risk factor rather than a deterministic cause. The rehabilitative philosophy of the Juvenile Justice Act is important here because education, skill development, vocational training, sponsorship and social reintegration can create legitimate pathways for children to develop meaningful and productive lives.17
G. Social disorganisation theory
Social disorganisation theory links crime to weakened community structures. Neighbourhoods characterised by poverty, instability, inadequate institutions and social fragmentation may experience greater levels of offending.18 For children, the neighbourhood is an important developmental environment. Lack of safe recreational spaces, poor educational facilities, family instability and exposure to criminal networks may increase vulnerability.
Juvenile justice therefore cannot operate exclusively through courts and institutions. Prevention requires community-based interventions, schools, families, social workers, local authorities and civil society organisations.19
H. Labelling theory
Labelling theory, associated particularly with Howard Becker and other interactionist scholars, focuses on the consequences of defining a person as deviant.20 If a child is permanently labelled a “criminal”, “delinquent” or “bad child”, the label may affect education, employment, social relationships and self-identity. It can produce exclusion and increase the likelihood of continued offending.
The terminology of the 2015 Act is significant in this regard. The expression “child in conflict with law” is more consistent with a rehabilitative approach than a permanent criminal identity. Confidentiality, child-friendly procedures, separation from adult offenders and opportunities for reintegration are therefore important safeguards against harmful labelling.21
I. Control theory
Control theories suggest that individuals are less likely to offend when they possess strong bonds with family, school and community.22 From this perspective, juvenile delinquency may increase when children experience weak family attachment, school disengagement or social isolation.
The appropriate response is consequently to strengthen social bonds rather than simply impose punishment. Restoration to family, education, vocational training, counselling, foster care and community-based rehabilitation can strengthen those bonds.23
The philosophical foundation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
The Juvenile Justice Act represents a movement towards a child-sensitive justice system. Its stated objective includes care, protection, development, treatment, social reintegration and rehabilitation through child-friendly processes.24
Section 3 contains general principles for administering the Act. These include principles relating to presumption of innocence, dignity and worth, participation, best interest, family responsibility, safety, positive measures, non-stigmatising semantics, institutionalisation as a measure of last resort, repatriation and restoration, fresh start and diversion.25 These principles are important because they transform juvenile justice from a narrow criminal process into a developmental and welfare-oriented framework.
Juvenile Justice Board
The Juvenile Justice Board is the central institution dealing with children in conflict with law. The Act establishes the Board under Section 4.26 Its composition and functions are designed to ensure that proceedings involving children are not handled exclusively through conventional criminal courts.
The Board has responsibilities relating to inquiry, assessment, orders concerning children found to be in conflict with law, rehabilitation and social reintegration.27 This institutional arrangement is consistent with child criminology because the Board is expected to consider more than the bare facts of the offence. The child’s age, circumstances, social background, psychological condition, family situation and prospects of rehabilitation may be relevant to determining an appropriate response.28 The Board therefore functions not simply as a forum for determining culpability but as an institution intended to connect adjudication with rehabilitation.
Child Welfare Committee
The Child Welfare Committee is primarily concerned with children in need of care and protection.29 This distinction is crucial. Not every vulnerable child has committed an offence. A child may require State protection because of abandonment, homelessness, exploitation, abuse, neglect or other circumstances.30
The Committee is required to undertake an inquiry into the child’s circumstances and facilitate care, protection, restoration and rehabilitation.31 The Model Rules provide for social investigation and individual care planning, with the ultimate objective of rehabilitation and reintegration based upon the child’s case history, circumstances and individual needs.32
From a criminological perspective, the CWC performs an important preventive function. A child who is protected from abuse, exploitation, homelessness and neglect may be less likely to enter the criminal justice system in the future.
Children’s Court
The Children’s Court occupies a distinctive position under the Act, particularly in relation to children aged sixteen to eighteen years alleged to have committed heinous offences.33 Section 15 requires the Juvenile Justice Board to undertake a preliminary assessment in specified cases involving children who have completed sixteen years and are alleged to have committed heinous offences. The assessment concerns the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, ability to understand its consequences and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence.34
The preliminary assessment is not intended to function as a conventional adult criminal trial.35 It is an assessment mechanism designed to determine whether the matter should be transferred to the Children’s Court for further consideration.36 The Children’s Court must nevertheless operate within the child-sensitive philosophy of the Act. The legislative scheme does not simply convert the child into an adult offender because of the seriousness of the allegation.37
The concept of “best interest of the child”
The best-interest principle is one of the most important foundations of contemporary child law.38 The phrase does not mean that the child should automatically be excused from every consequence of unlawful behaviour. Rather, decision-making should identify the course of action that best protects the child’s dignity, development, safety, welfare and prospects of becoming a responsible member of society.
The best-interest principle requires consideration of the child’s age, physical and psychological development, family environment, educational needs, safety, social background, vulnerability and rehabilitation prospects, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the interests of other children and society. The principle therefore demands individualised justice. A rigid punishment-oriented approach may overlook the fact that two children who commit similar offences may have entirely different backgrounds and rehabilitation needs.
Heinous offences and children aged sixteen to eighteen
One of the most debated aspects of the 2015 Act is its treatment of children aged sixteen to eighteen alleged to have committed heinous offences. The Act defines a heinous offence with reference to offences for which the minimum punishment under the relevant law is imprisonment for seven years or more.39 The Act creates a special preliminary-assessment mechanism for children in the sixteen-to-eighteen age group.40
Section 15 requires the Board to assess:
1. the mental capacity of the child to commit the offence;
2. the physical capacity of the child to commit the offence;
3. the ability of the child to understand the consequences of the alleged offence; and
4. the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed.41
This provision reflects an attempt to reconcile two competing concerns: the need for accountability in extremely serious cases and the recognition that adolescence remains a developmental stage. The legislative framework thus avoids an automatic rule under which every sixteen-to-eighteen-year-old accused of a heinous offence would necessarily be treated as an adult.
Rehabilitation as the core of juvenile justice
Rehabilitation is arguably the most important criminological objective of juvenile justice. The objective is not merely to ensure that a child experiences a consequence for wrongdoing but to reduce the likelihood of future offending and restore the child to a productive social life. Rehabilitation may include education, vocational training, counselling, psychological support, medical care, life-skills training, recreational activities, family counselling, community participation, restoration to family, sponsorship, foster care, aftercare and supervised reintegration.42
The Model Rules expressly connect individual care planning with restoration of dignity, self-esteem and self-worth and preparation for responsible citizenship.43 This approach corresponds closely with several criminological theories. Social learning theory suggests that positive behavioural models should replace harmful influences. Control theory emphasises strengthening family and social bonds. Labelling theory warns against permanent criminal identities. Strain theory points towards education and legitimate opportunities. Rehabilitation therefore represents not merely a welfare measure but a criminologically informed strategy for preventing recidivism.
Adoption as a child protection and reintegration mechanism
Adoption is primarily relevant to children who cannot be cared for adequately by their biological families and who satisfy the legal requirements for adoption. The juvenile justice framework treats adoption as an important form of permanent family-based care. The Act provides for the adoption framework and recognises the statutory role of the Central Adoption Resource Authority.44
The adoption process must be based upon the child’s welfare, legal status and best interests. A child cannot simply be transferred from one family to another without compliance with the statutory safeguards.45 The Committee has an important role in cases involving orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children.46 Adoption therefore serves a dual purpose: it provides a permanent family environment and reduces unnecessary institutionalisation. From a criminological perspective, a stable family environment may strengthen attachment, supervision and social integration, thereby reducing some risk factors associated with later delinquency.
Foster care
Foster care provides an alternative family-based care arrangement for children who cannot immediately remain with their biological families.47 The underlying philosophy is that institutional care should not automatically become the permanent solution for every vulnerable child. Family-based care can provide emotional stability, social interaction, individual attention, educational support, a sense of belonging and protection from institutional dependency.
The contemporary child-protection framework has increasingly emphasised family-based and community-based alternatives. The Model Foster Care Guidelines, 2024 further develop the foster-care framework under the juvenile justice system and place emphasis on family-based care and deinstitutionalisation.48 Foster care is therefore not merely a welfare arrangement. It may also function as a preventive intervention by creating supportive social bonds around vulnerable children.
Offences against children and punishment under the Act
The Juvenile Justice Act does not deal exclusively with children who commit offences. It also creates offences relating to the exploitation, abuse and improper treatment of children. The legislative framework includes provisions addressing conduct such as cruelty to children, employment of children for begging, giving intoxicating substances to children, exploitation of children, sale and procurement of children and certain forms of abuse within child-care institutions.49
This is an important aspect of child criminology because children may simultaneously be offenders, victims and witnesses. A child involved in offending behaviour may himself or herself have experienced violence, exploitation or neglect.50 The justice system must therefore avoid constructing an artificial distinction between “offender” and “victim” where the child’s circumstances demonstrate vulnerability. Punishment for offences against children serves a protective function and reinforces institutional accountability.
Juvenile justice and the problem of recidivism
Recidivism refers broadly to repeated offending after an earlier intervention by the justice system. A juvenile justice system that concentrates only on the immediate offence may fail if it does not address the causes that produced the behaviour. Repeated juvenile offending may be associated with family rejection, school exclusion, substance abuse, negative peer groups, lack of vocational opportunities, institutional abuse, unresolved psychological problems, social stigma, homelessness and lack of post-release support.
The Act’s emphasis on rehabilitation and social reintegration is therefore directly relevant to recidivism prevention. The objective should be to create a transition from offending behaviour to constructive citizenship rather than a cycle of apprehension, institutionalisation, release and reoffending.
Institutionalisation and the principle of last resort
Institutional care may sometimes be necessary to protect a child, particularly where the family environment is unsafe or unavailable. However, institutionalisation may also create risks if it becomes the default response. Children placed in institutions may experience separation from family, stigma, loss of community connections, dependency on institutional structures and exposure to other vulnerable or delinquent children.
For these reasons, the principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last resort is important.51 The preference for family restoration, foster care, sponsorship and community-based alternatives reflects a broader movement towards deinstitutionalisation.52
The child-friendly justice approach
A child-friendly justice system requires more than physical separation of children from adult offenders. It requires accessible procedures, respectful communication, participation of the child, protection from intimidation, confidentiality, legal assistance, consideration of the child’s developmental level, involvement of parents or guardians where appropriate, and social and psychological support.53
The Model Rules provide detailed child-friendly procedures for the police, the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court.54 When the Ministry of Women and Child Development released the draft Model Rules in May 2016, it explained that the Board and the Children’s Court were to adhere to the principle of the best interest of the child and to the objective of rehabilitation and reintegration of the child in society.55 The procedural environment is therefore itself an element of rehabilitation.
Critical issues in the juvenile justice framework
Although the 2015 Act provides an extensive statutory framework, implementation remains crucial.
Quality of social investigation. The effectiveness of the system depends substantially upon accurate social investigation. If the child’s family, psychological and social circumstances are inadequately examined, the Board may not possess sufficient information for meaningful rehabilitation.
Training of functionaries. Police officers, Board members, Committee members, probation officers, social workers and institutional staff require specialised training in child psychology, trauma, communication and juvenile justice.56
Institutional conditions. Rehabilitation cannot be achieved merely by changing statutory language. Child-care institutions must provide safe accommodation, education, healthcare, counselling, recreation and vocational opportunities.
Psychological support. Children involved in criminal proceedings may themselves have histories of trauma. Psychological assessment and counselling should therefore be treated as integral components rather than optional services.
Family-based rehabilitation. Where safe and appropriate, family restoration should be prioritised. However, restoration should not be ordered mechanically where the family itself is the source of abuse or exploitation.57
The heinous-offence framework. The special treatment of sixteen-to-eighteen-year-old children accused of heinous offences remains one of the most controversial aspects of the Act. The preliminary assessment must therefore be conducted carefully and scientifically rather than becoming a routine gateway to adult-style proceedings.58
A criminological model for effective juvenile justice. A more effective juvenile justice system may be conceptualised through five interconnected stages: Prevention → Assessment → Accountability → Rehabilitation → Reintegration.
Stage one: prevention. The system should identify vulnerable children before they enter the criminal justice system.
Stage two: assessment. The child’s developmental, psychological, family and social circumstances should be examined.
Stage three: accountability. Where an offence is established, the child should face an appropriate and proportionate legal response.
Stage four: rehabilitation. The intervention should address the underlying causes of offending through education, counselling, skills and family support.
Stage five: reintegration. The child should be assisted in returning to family, education, employment, community and ordinary social life.
This model is more consistent with modern criminology than a punishment-only approach.
Need for a multi-disciplinary approach. Juvenile justice cannot be successfully administered by legal institutions alone. A comprehensive system should involve judges and magistrates, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, educators, probation officers, police officers, child-protection professionals, NGOs, family members, community organisations and vocational institutions.
The reason is straightforward: juvenile offending is multi-dimensional and therefore requires a multi-disciplinary response. A legal order can determine what should happen to a child, but rehabilitation frequently depends upon professionals who understand the child’s psychological, educational and social needs.
Best interest, accountability and public safety. A common criticism of rehabilitative juvenile justice is that excessive emphasis on welfare may undermine accountability or public safety. This criticism should not be ignored.
The best-interest principle does not mean that victims’ interests or public safety are irrelevant. A balanced juvenile justice system must simultaneously consider the child’s rights, the victim’s interests, public safety, rehabilitation and accountability. The 2015 Act attempts to achieve this balance by retaining legal consequences for juvenile offending while creating specialised procedures and rehabilitation-oriented institutions.
Suggestions for strengthening child criminology under the juvenile justice framework
The following measures may strengthen the implementation of juvenile justice in India:
1. Strengthen psychological assessment of children involved in serious offences.
2. Improve social investigation reports through trained social workers.
3. Provide continuous training to JJB and CWC members.
4. Expand community-based rehabilitation programmes.
5. Increase access to counselling and mental-health services.
6. Strengthen family counselling and restoration mechanisms.
7. Promote foster care and other family-based alternatives where institutional care is unnecessary.
8. Improve vocational education for adolescents.
9. Develop structured programmes for digital and cyber-related delinquency.
10. Strengthen aftercare services after a child leaves institutional care.
11. Prevent stigma and labelling in educational and community environments.
12. Create better data systems for measuring rehabilitation and recidivism.
13. Ensure independent monitoring of Child Care Institutions.
14. Use restorative approaches wherever legally and practically appropriate.
15. Ensure meaningful participation of children in decisions affecting them.
Conclusion
Child criminology demonstrates that juvenile delinquency cannot be explained through a single theory or a single cause. Juvenile offending may emerge from the interaction of developmental immaturity, psychological conditions, family relationships, peer influence, social deprivation, community disorganisation and individual choices.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reflects an attempt to respond to this complexity. Its distinction between children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection is foundational. The Juvenile Justice Board provides a specialised forum for children alleged to have committed offences, while the Child Welfare Committee focuses upon children requiring care and protection. The Children’s Court performs a specialised role in the statutory scheme concerning certain heinous offences committed by children in the sixteen-to-eighteen age group.
The concept of the best interest of the child provides the normative centre of the system. Rehabilitation, social reintegration, family restoration, adoption, foster care, sponsorship and aftercare represent mechanisms through which the State seeks to prevent children from becoming permanently embedded in the criminal justice system.
The criminological theories discussed in this article reinforce this philosophy. Differential association and social learning theories highlight the influence of peers and social environments. Strain and social disorganisation theories draw attention to structural and community conditions. Psychological theories demonstrate the significance of emotional and developmental factors. Labelling theory warns against permanently branding children as criminals, while control theories emphasise the protective role of family, education and social bonds.
The special treatment of children aged sixteen to eighteen accused of heinous offences represents an attempt to address exceptionally serious conduct while retaining a developmental assessment. However, the success of this mechanism depends upon the quality, independence and scientific character of the preliminary assessment.
Ultimately, juvenile justice should not be understood as a choice between punishment and complete exemption from responsibility. The more appropriate approach is developmentally informed accountability. A child who commits an offence must be made to understand the consequences of the conduct, but the justice system should also ask whether the child can be guided towards a lawful and constructive future.
The central question of child criminology is therefore not simply “What offence did the child commit?” It is also “Why did the child enter into conflict with law, what does the child need, and what intervention can prevent future offending?”
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 provides the legal framework for asking these questions. Its true effectiveness, however, depends upon implementation through competent institutions, trained professionals, adequate resources, family participation and a genuine commitment to rehabilitation and social reintegration. A successful juvenile justice system is ultimately one that protects society not by permanently excluding children who have offended, but by helping them develop into responsible and productive members of society.
*****
Footnotes
1. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India) [hereinafter JJ Act], amended by The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, No. 23, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India) (in force Sept. 1, 2022).
2. JJ Act, long title (“by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation”).
3. JJ Act § 1(3); Notification No. S.O. 110(E), Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II sec. 3(ii) (Jan. 12, 2016) (appointing Jan. 15, 2016 as the date of commencement).
4. JJ Act §§ 1(4), 2(13), 2(14).
5. JJ Act §§ 2(20) (Children’s Court), 2(21) (child care institution), 4 (Juvenile Justice Board), 27 (Child Welfare Committee).
6. JJ Act §§ 39 (rehabilitation and social re-integration), 40 (restoration), 44 (foster care), 45 (sponsorship), 46 (after care), 56–73 (adoption).
7. JJ Act § 2(12).
8. JJ Act § 2(13) (“a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of such offence”); see also id. § 3(viii) (principle of non-stigmatising semantics).
9. Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments (London, J. Almon 1767); Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (London, T. Payne & Son 1789).
10. JJ Act § 15(1).
11. JJ Act §§ 8(3)(e) (social investigation report “to ascertain the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed”), 13(1)(ii) (report on the antecedents and family background of the child), 36(2) (social investigation for children in need of care and protection).
12. JJ Act §§ 8(3)(h), 19(2), 30(vi), 39(1).
13. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 898(E), Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II sec. 3(i) (Sept. 21, 2016) (India) [hereinafter Model Rules], amended by The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Amendment Rules, 2022, G.S.R. 678(E) (Sept. 1, 2022) (India); Model Rules r. 2(1)(ix); see also Model Rules Form 7 (individual care plan).
14. Edwin H. Sutherland & Donald R. Cressey, Principles of Criminology (7th ed. 1966).
15. Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory (Prentice-Hall 1977).
16. Robert K. Merton, Social Structure and Anomie, 3 Am. Socio. Rev. 672 (1938), https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686.
17. JJ Act §§ 18(2)(i)–(ii) (orders to attend school or a vocational training centre), 39, 45.
18. Clifford R. Shaw & Henry D. McKay, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (Univ. of Chi. Press 1942).
19. G.A. Res. 45/112, annex, United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines), ¶¶ 6, 9 (Dec. 14, 1990) [hereinafter Riyadh Guidelines].
20. Howard S. Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (Free Press 1963); see also Riyadh Guidelines, supra note 19, ¶ 5(f).
21. JJ Act §§ 2(15), 3(xi), 3(xiv), 10(1) proviso, 23, 24, 74; G.A. Res. 40/33, annex, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules), r. 8.1 (Nov. 29, 1985) [hereinafter Beijing Rules].
22. Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (Univ. of Cal. Press 1969).
23. JJ Act §§ 39(1), 40, 44.
24. JJ Act, long title.
25. JJ Act § 3(i)–(viii), (xii)–(xv).
26. JJ Act § 4(1)–(2).
27. JJ Act §§ 8(3), 14, 15, 17, 18.
28. JJ Act § 18(1) (orders to be based on “the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child”).
29. JJ Act §§ 27(1), 29(1).
30. JJ Act § 2(14).
31. JJ Act §§ 30(ii), 30(iii), 30(vi), 36(1)–(2).
32. Model Rules r. 19(3), (4), (4A).
33. JJ Act § 2(20) (a court established under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 or a Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and, where none has been designated, the Court of Sessions).
34. JJ Act § 15(1).
35. JJ Act § 15(1) Explanation (“preliminary assessment is not a trial”).
36. JJ Act §§ 15(2), 18(3), 19(1).
37. JJ Act §§ 19(1)(i) (trial to take account of “the special needs of the child, the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a child friendly atmosphere”), 19(1)(ii) (inquiry as a Board where trial as an adult is not needed), 19(3) (place of safety until the age of twenty-one), 21 (no sentence of death or of life imprisonment without the possibility of release).
38. Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 3(1), Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3; JJ Act §§ 2(9), 3(iv); see also JJ Act, pmbl. (recording India’s accession to the Convention on Dec. 11, 1992).
39. JJ Act § 2(33). The 2021 amendment left this definition unchanged but substituted § 2(54), so that “serious offences” now also include offences carrying a maximum term of more than seven years with no minimum term, or a minimum term of less than seven years.
40. JJ Act §§ 14(5)(f), 15(1).
41. JJ Act § 15(1); see also Model Rules r. 10A.
42. JJ Act §§ 18(1)–(2), 19(3) proviso, 39–46.
43. Model Rules r. 2(1)(ix) (plan prepared “in order to restore the child’s self-esteem, dignity and self-worth and nurture him into a responsible citizen”).
44. JJ Act §§ 56(1), 68.
45. JJ Act §§ 56(1), 58, 80; Adoption Regulations, 2022, G.S.R. 726(E), Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II sec. 3(i) (Sept. 23, 2022) (India). Since the 2021 amendment came into force on Sept. 1, 2022, the adoption order is passed by the District Magistrate. JJ Act § 58(3)–(4).
46. JJ Act §§ 30(ix), 30(xi), 35, 38.
47. JJ Act § 44(1).
48. Ministry of Women & Child Development, Gov’t of India, Model Foster Care Guidelines, 2024, ¶ 18 (2024) (successor to the Model Foster Care Guidelines, 2016).
49. JJ Act §§ 75 (cruelty to child), 76 (employment of child for begging), 77 (giving intoxicating liquor, narcotic drugs, tobacco products or psychotropic substances to a child), 79 (exploitation of a child employee), 81 (sale and procurement of children), 82 (corporal punishment in a child care institution).
50. JJ Act § 8(3)(g) (“recognising that a child in conflict with law can also be a child in need of care simultaneously”).
51. JJ Act § 3(xii); Beijing Rules, supra note 21, r. 19.1; G.A. Res. 45/113, annex, United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty, rr. 1–2 (Dec. 14, 1990); Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 38, art. 37(b).
52. JJ Act § 39(1).
53. JJ Act §§ 2(15), 3(iii), 8(3)(a)–(d), 14(5)(b)–(c).
54. Model Rules rr. 8–13.
55. Press Release, Ministry of Women & Child Development, Smt Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Releases Draft Model Rules under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Press Information Bureau, May 25, 2016), https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=145659.
56. See JJ Act §§ 4(5), 27(1) (induction training and sensitisation of Board and Committee members); Model Rules r. 89.
57. See JJ Act § 3(xiii) (restoration to the family “unless such restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest”).
58. See JJ Act § 15(1) proviso (assistance of “experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts”); Model Rules r. 10A(2).