Justice BV Nagarathna flags gaps in juvenile justice law implementation

Justice BV Nagarathna said the Juvenile Justice Act is largely clear on paper. The deeper problem is whether institutions apply it consistently, expertly and sensitively. That matters because children can spend long periods inside a system meant to protect and reform them.

She questioned whether Juvenile Justice Boards make Section 15 assessments properly, and whether boards have their required magistrate and social worker members. She also raised concerns about delayed Social Investigation Reports, weak legal aid, unsuitable care plans and inadequate support for Child Welfare Committees.

The concerns extend beyond hearings. Children may lack education, counselling, medical care or a suitable living arrangement while cases continue. The judge also asked whether children with disabilities receive equal access, and whether foster care and adoption move quickly when family reunification is impossible. Her message was that implementation must be judged by children’s actual rehabilitation, not case disposal alone.

A Juvenile Justice Board, or JJB, is the forum responsible for dealing with children in conflict with law. Its role is shaped by juvenile justice principles, including rehabilitation, reintegration, family-based care and the child’s best interests. The system therefore looks beyond simply deciding guilt and punishment.

Justice Nagarathna stressed that a JJB is “not intended to be a miniature criminal court.” It must consider a child’s circumstances and, where required under Section 15, assess the child’s mental and physical capacity. The process also depends on social workers, legal aid and Social Investigation Reports.

This difference matters in practice. A regular criminal court is associated with conventional criminal adjudication, while a JJB must connect legal decisions with care and reform. The judge questioned whether boards have full membership and enough support. She also asked whether children receive education, counselling, medical care and suitable living arrangements during proceedings.

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 does not use one identical response for every alleged offence. It classifies offences as petty, serious and heinous. This classification helps determine how the system responds while keeping rehabilitation, reintegration, family-based care and the child’s best interests at its centre.

The key mechanism highlighted by Justice Nagarathna is Section 15. A Juvenile Justice Board must conduct a preliminary assessment of a child’s mental and physical capacity. The assessment is especially important when the question arises whether a child in conflict with law should be treated as an adult. The judge questioned whether boards perform it consistently, expertly and sensitively.

The article presents this as a delicate balance between concern about serious crime and constitutional commitment to childhood. Justice Nagarathna did not call for legislative change. Instead, she said the law is largely clear on paper and that consistent implementation should be the priority.

The backlog is substantial. The India Justice Report from November 2025 found that, as of October 2023, 55% of cases before Juvenile Justice Boards across 18 states and two Union Territories were pending. This means many children remained inside an unresolved process for extended periods.

More than 55,000 children were awaiting decisions. The staffing figures reveal another serious weakness: 111 of the 470 responding boards were functioning without their full complement. Each board is supposed to have a principal magistrate and two social worker members.

These numbers matter because delay is not merely an administrative inconvenience for children. Justice Nagarathna asked whether they receive education, counselling, legal help and medical care while cases drag on. She also questioned whether their living arrangements are suitable. The figures strengthen her broader point: closing cases is not enough unless the system also delivers rehabilitation and protection.

When a juvenile justice case drags on, the child’s wider development can be affected. Justice BV Nagarathna asked whether children receive education, counselling, legal help and medical care while they wait. She also questioned whether they live in suitable places during the process.

The system is supposed to provide more than a legal decision. It should support an individual care plan, timely Social Investigation Reports and rehabilitation. Legal aid must work in practice, not exist only on paper. Care should also account for disability, family circumstances and the possibility of foster care or adoption.

The consequences of delay are therefore both immediate and long term. A child may remain in uncertainty while support services fail to arrive or fit their needs. Even after a case ends, the outcome may not restore the child’s wellbeing. As Justice Nagarathna put it, “A disposed case is not necessarily a rehabilitated child.”

The 2015 Act emerged from two pressures. It grew out of the rights-based approach of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which placed children’s rights and protection at the centre. At the same time, serious crimes committed by teenagers triggered public debate about whether the existing response was sufficient.

The result was a law that classified offences as petty, serious and heinous. This meant the offence could shape the response, rather than every case receiving exactly the same treatment. The law still retained rehabilitation, reintegration, family-based care and the child’s best interests as central principles.

That background explains the tension Justice Nagarathna described. Anxiety about crime can conflict with constitutional commitment to childhood, while punishment can compete with reform. Her remarks did not call for rewriting the law. They focused on making its existing safeguards and procedures work consistently, sensitively and effectively in practice.

Juvenile justice emphasizes rehabilitation because its purpose is not only to respond to an offence. It also seeks to support a child’s development, return the child to family or community where possible, and prevent the justice process from causing further harm. The article identifies reintegration, family-based care and the child’s best interests as central.

This approach shapes practical decisions. A board must look beyond the file and consider care plans, education, counselling, medical care and legal help. If a child cannot return to family, foster care or adoption may need to move urgently. Children with disabilities must also be able to access the system equally.

Justice Nagarathna framed the principle sharply: “When a child breaks the law, the law must not break the child.” That is why she said a disposed case is not necessarily a rehabilitated child. The system’s success depends on children receiving meaningful support, not merely final orders.