Effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is essential for child welfare, requiring proactive judicial oversight and accountability from state authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Basant Balaji J.

“The hallmark of culture and advance of civilization consists in the fulfilment of our obligation to the young generation by opening all opportunities for every child to develop its personality and rise to its full stature, physical, mental, moral, and spiritual. It is the birth right of every child that cries for justice from the world.”

: - Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer

India has a wide range of laws to protect children and child protection is accepted as a core component of social development. However, the challenge lies in implementing the laws due to inadequate human resource capacity and quality prevention and rehabilitation services. As a result, millions of children are prone to violence, abuse, and exploitation. Violence takes place in all settings: at home, school, childcare institutions, work and in the community. Often violence is perpetrated by someone known to the child. As per the National Crime Records Bureau, last year, minors in the country committed a total of 30,555 crimes; Delhi is sixth on the list, with over 2,340 cases involving minors. In 2020, the cases registered against minors exceeded 2,643. This urges a call to the systems all over there for a strict implementation of laws prevailing in this regard.

PETITIONERS AND THE PRESENT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. The first Petitioner, Bachpan Bachao Andolan is a non-Governmental Organization working towards the eradication of anti-trafficking and anti- slavery, founded by the Nobel Peace Laureate Kailash Satyarthi, with a vision to protect and prevent children from all forms of exploitation. It aims to identify, liberate, rehabilitate, and educate children in servitude. The 2^nd petitioner is a human rights activist and is the sole Petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, [2018 (4) SCC 433] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court issued certain general directions to the Union of India and to all State governments for the proper implementation and functioning of the Juvenile Justice System in India.

3. The present Writ petition in public interest is filed before this Court seeking directions to the Respondents representing the State of Kerala, to comply with the order and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sampurna Behura, and for other reliefs for the effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice System in India.

HISTORY OF JUVENILE LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA

4. It is proper to elucidate the juvenile legislations in India to have a better understanding of the context. The historical development of juvenile justice in India can be traced back to ancient times, where the concept of providing care and protection to children in need was prevalent in the Indian society. The same can be placed under two heads namely, pre-independent and the post-independent period.

(A) LEGISLATIONS IN PRE-INDEPENDENT INDIA

5. The first significant legislation concerning Juvenile Justice in India was the Apprentices Act of 1850. This Act marked the initial attempt to differentiate juveniles from adult criminals. Under this law, minors convicted of petty crimes were placed in apprenticeship programs rather than being sentenced to imprisonment. The idea was to rehabilitate and reform young offenders by providing them with vocational training, thereby enabling them to reintegrate into society.

6. Subsequently, the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 was introduced to provide institutional care for juvenile offenders. This Act sent children to reformatory schools instead of regular prisons, with the aim of educating and rehabilitating them. Despite its reformative approach, the Act lacked a standardized framework and was implemented inconsistently across different provinces.

7. It was amidst the British rule, the Indian Penal Code of 1860 was introduced with provisions for the treatment of juvenile offenders. However, these provisions were punitive in nature