Back
Justice BV Nagarathna Emphasizes Reform Over Punishment in Juvenile Justice Act Implementation
Justice BV Nagarathna has delivered a powerful message on the delicate balance between accountability and in India’s juvenile justice system. Speaking at the National Annual Stakeholders Consultation marking ten years of the , the judge underscored the principle that “when a child breaks the law, the law must not break the child.” Her remarks come at a time when startling data reveals that over 55,000 children in conflict with the law are awaiting decisions, with 55% of cases pending before Juvenile Justice Boards across 18 States and two Union Territories.
Justice Nagarathna, who serves on the apex court’s Juvenile Justice Committee, framed the tension inherent in treating a child as an adult as “one of the most delicate fault lines in the criminal justice system.” She noted that the system must constantly navigate competing considerations—public outrage versus legislative restraint, and the impulse to punish versus the philosophy of reform. The Juvenile Justice Act, she observed, makes the nature of the alleged offence relevant in light of intense societal debate over serious crimes committed by adolescents, but its core objectives remain , the , , and .
Reform Over Punishment: A Delicate Balance
The consultation, convened under the aegis of the ’s Juvenile Justice Committee in association with , provided a platform for Justice Nagarathna to highlight both the legislative framework and its ground-level challenges. She emphasised that the Juvenile Justice Act is fundamentally concerned with the future of the child. “The intervention of the legislature and the State in a child’s life,” she stated, “is, in a very real sense, an intervention in that child’s future.”
This orientation is reflected in the Act’s treatment of . Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the statute distinguishes between two categories: and . For the latter, the becomes the institutional focal point, but care is not synonymous with placement in an institution. “The Act expressly treats ,” she said. “The preferred objective, wherever consistent with the child’s best interests, is and restoration.”
The judge also highlighted that forms part of the statute’s conception of securing a child’s . The Act provides a mechanism by which orphaned or abandoned children may be declared legally free for after a prescribed inquiry. Yet, Justice Nagarathna cautioned that while the law is clear on paper, the challenges lie in implementation.
The Stark Reality of Implementation
Citing the India Justice Report 2025, Justice Nagarathna painted a sobering picture of the system’s performance. As of , 55% of cases before Juvenile Justice Boards across 18 States and two Union Territories remained pending. Out of 1,00,904 cases before 363 Boards, only 45,097 were disposed of. Furthermore, 111 out of 470 Boards were functioning without the full bench of a principal magistrate and two social-worker members, as required by law.
“Pending disposal,” the judge asked, “what happens to the child after a disposed case? A disposed case is not necessarily a rehabilitated child.” To answer this question, she stressed the importance of longitudinal data. The ’s Juvenile Justice Committee has been receiving annual submissions from States since , together with inputs from juvenile justice committees. This data, Justice Nagarathna noted, offers an opportunity to look at movement over time—to identify progress, persistent bottlenecks, and practices that may be replicated elsewhere. “That is precisely the kind of evidence we need for the next decade,” she added.
Data-Driven Future and Coordination
The judge’s emphasis on longitudinal data reflects a broader recognition that the juvenile justice system cannot be improved without understanding the life trajectories of children after they exit formal proceedings. , , educational attainment, and mental health outcomes are all areas that require systematic tracking. The India Justice Report data provides a baseline, but the ’s committee seeks to build a dynamic picture that informs policy and resource allocation.
Justice Nagarathna also flagged the need for coordination among multiple stakeholders. “No single institution can implement the JJ Act,” she declared. “The Board cannot do it alone. The cannot do it alone. Nor can the judiciary, the police, the executive, legal services institutions, social workers, civil society organisations or families. The system works only when these parts work together.”
This holistic vision is critical, particularly at a time when the Act’s provisions on trying children as adults in certain serious offences have generated controversy. While the law permits the to assess whether a child aged 16–18 should be tried as an adult for , Justice Nagarathna’s remarks reaffirm the Act’s overarching . The next decade, she implied, must focus on strengthening not merely individual institutions, but the connections between them.
Impact on Legal Practice and Policy
For legal professionals, Justice Nagarathna’s observations carry significant implications. First, the emphasis on data and coordination means that lawyers and judges working in juvenile justice must be prepared to engage with empirical evidence and multidisciplinary teams. The traditional adversarial approach may give way to a more collaborative, problem-solving framework.
Second, the high rate of pending cases—over 55,000 children awaiting decisions—raises urgent concerns about and the right to a for minors. Delay in juvenile proceedings can have lifelong consequences, as children age out of the system or miss critical windows for intervention. The judiciary may need to monitor compliance with the Act’s timelines more rigorously.
Third, the judge’s call for monitoring after case disposal suggests that legal representation should extend beyond the courtroom. Pro bono and legal aid networks may need to partner with social workers and counsellors to ensure that disposed cases truly lead to . Longitudinal data, as Justice Nagarathna noted, will be key to assessing whether the system is fulfilling its promise of .
Finally, the functioning of Juvenile Justice Boards without full benches is a structural deficiency that demands immediate attention. Lawyers and activists may use the India Justice Report data to push for better appointments, training, and infrastructure. The upcoming decade, as the consultation itself suggests, must be one of evidence-based reform.
Conclusion
Justice BV Nagarathna’s address serves as a clarion call for the legal community to re-engage with the juvenile justice system’s foundational values. The law must not break the child—even when the child has broken the law. This principle, though simple in expression, requires a complex institutional machinery to be realised. With more than half of all cases pending and thousands of children in limbo, the gap between legislative intent and ground reality is stark. Yet the availability of longitudinal data and the ’s active oversight offer grounds for cautious optimism. The next decade will test whether India can translate its progressive juvenile justice framework into meaningful outcomes for every child who comes into contact with the law.
