Treating a child in conflict with the law as an adult represents one of the most delicate fault lines in the criminal justice system, sitting at the raw intersection of public outrage, legislative restraint, and the constitutional commitment to childhood. Nagarathna emphasized that the juvenile justice system must view every child as an individual rather than a mere administrative statistic.
Balancing Reform and Retribution in the Shadow of Serious Offence
The contemporary legal framework rests on navigating competing impulses within society. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, makes the nature of an alleged offence relevant when determining statutory responses, particularly in the wake of intense public debate over serious offences. Yet, the legislation maintains core objectives centered on rehabilitation, social reintegration, family-based care, and the overall best interests of the child. Justice Nagarathna underscored that the statute is fundamentally concerned with a child’s future, noting that any state intervention in a child’s life directly shapes their trajectory.
The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, reinforced this philosophy during the inaugural sessions, pointing out that children often struggle to articulate their perspectives before authorities. The Chief Justice noted that a child in conflict with the law today was frequently a child in need of care and protection whom the system failed to reach in time. He stressed that societal responses must rely on restoration rather than retribution, operating on the legislative presumption that individuals under 18 lack criminal intent and benefit more from community service, probation, and counseling than from confinement.
Institutionalization as a Last Resort Under the 2015 Act
A central tenet of the decade-old legislation is that care does not equate to institutionalization. The statute explicitly details two situations: children in conflict with the law, managed by Juvenile Justice Boards, and children in need of care and protection, supported by Child Welfare Committees.
Following the mandated inquiry, the legislation lays down the procedures through which an abandoned or orphaned minor can be officially declared available for adoption. The legal framework prefers family-based care and restoration, wherever consistent with the child’s best interests, over institutionalization, which is treated as a measure of last resort.
Implementation Hurdles and the Reality of Pendency
While the statute remains clear on paper, severe challenges persist during execution. Citing the India Justice Report (2025), Justice Nagarathna highlighted that 55% of cases remained pending before JJBs across 18 States and 2 UTs as of October 31, 2023. Out of 1,00,904 matters handled by 363 Boards during that timeframe, only 45,097 were successfully concluded, leaving more than 55,000 children awaiting decisions. Furthermore, 111 out of 470 Boards were functioning without the full bench of a principal magistrate and two social-worker members as required by the legislation.
A disposed case does not necessarily mean a rehabilitated child. To answer what happens to the child after a disposed case, Justice Nagarathna stated that longitudinal data is important and is being received by the Supreme Court’s JJ Committee.
Strengthening Institutional Networks for the Next Decade
Addressing the two-day national consultation—convened by the Juvenile Justice Committee of the Supreme Court in association with UNICEF—officials underscored the necessity of cross-sector collaboration. Justice Nagarathna pointed out that no single entity can shoulder the implementation burden alone. Effective child protection requires functional coordination among Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Welfare Committees, the judiciary, police, the executive, legal services institutions, social workers, civil society organisations, and families.
The consultation brought together Supreme Court and high court judges, senior government officials, and child rights experts to mark ten years of the 2015 Act. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant released a compendium of landmark Supreme Court and high court judgments relating to the Act, covering the period from 2015 to September 2026. The proceedings continue with technical sessions examining preliminary assessments in heinous offences, adoption procedures, and regional implementation variations before concluding with remarks from Supreme Court judge Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Ministry of Women and Child Development Secretary Anil Malik.
