CJI releases e-compendium of landmark verdicts of SC, HCs relating to Juvenile Justice Act

The e-compendium gathers important judgments on the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It records how courts have interpreted and applied the law. This matters because juvenile justice depends on clear, child-sensitive legal principles, not only on the text of the Act.

The collection includes decisions from the Supreme Court and high courts. It covers jurisprudential developments spanning from 2015 to September 2026. These rulings help explain safeguards for children in conflict with law, procedures, and the wider child-protection system.

The CJI released the compendium during a national consultation marking ten years of the Act. Judges, justice officials, child welfare bodies, and government departments reviewed implementation. The compilation can support more consistent decisions and stronger institutions during the Act’s next decade.

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is India’s framework for responding to children who come into contact with the law. It also covers children needing care and protection. Its central purpose is to ensure that children receive protection, care, rehabilitation, and fair treatment rather than being handled like adults.

The Act regulates institutions and authorities involved in juvenile justice. These include juvenile justice boards, child welfare committees, courts, and government departments. The article highlights safeguards for children in conflict with law and non-institutional alternative care. UNICEF also stressed child-friendly procedures and diversion from formal penal processes.

The consultation examined the Act after its first ten years of implementation. It brought together judges, officials, board members, committee members, and others. Their review focused on evidence, institutional performance, and priorities for the next decade. The article presents the law as a protective system, not simply a punishment measure.

The national consultation reviewed the first ten years of implementing the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. This milestone allowed stakeholders to examine whether the system has developed as intended. It also created space to identify continuing challenges and decide what should receive attention next.

The consultation was titled “Ten Years of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: Progress, Challenges and Priorities for the Next Decade.” Participants undertook an evidence-based institutional audit. They considered safeguards for children in conflict with law, child-protection machinery, and non-institutional alternative care.

The event involved Supreme Court and high court judges, judicial academy directors, government department secretaries, juvenile justice boards, and child welfare committees. Its afternoon session evaluated implementation across six states and Union territories. The findings and discussions were intended to guide institutional priorities during the Act’s next decade.

Landmark judgments matter because legislation often needs judicial interpretation in real situations. Courts explain how broad legal protections and procedures should work. In juvenile justice, that interpretation is especially important because decisions can affect a child’s safety, development, and future.

The e-compendium brings together Supreme Court and high court rulings from 2015 to September 2026. The consultation’s first technical session specifically examined substantive and procedural safeguards for children in conflict with law. Those decisions can help authorities understand how to protect rights while following lawful processes.

The judgments also record wider jurisprudential developments under the Act. They can guide judges, juvenile justice boards, child welfare committees, and government officials. A shared reference may encourage more consistent, child-friendly implementation. This supports the consultation’s broader goal of reviewing institutions and setting priorities for the next decade.

These bodies form the institutional structure through which juvenile justice operates. Juvenile justice boards deal with children in conflict with law, while child welfare committees address child-protection concerns. Judges interpret the Act and guide legal safeguards. Government departments help make policies and systems function in practice.

The consultation brought together members of juvenile justice boards and child welfare committees, along with Supreme Court and high court judges. Secretaries of women and child development departments and directors of state judicial academies also participated. Their presence connected legal decision-making with administration, training, and child-protection services.

The article does not assign every operational detail to each participant. It does show that their roles are connected. Judges reviewed safeguards and procedures, while stakeholders audited implementation and child-protection machinery. Cooperation among these institutions is therefore central to building child-friendly procedures and improving the Act’s next decade.

Non-institutional care offers a way to protect children without making institutional placement the automatic response. The approach matters because child welfare can sometimes be supported through families, communities, or other care arrangements. The article identifies this as part of the system’s child-protection machinery.

The second technical session reviewed non-institutional alternative care. UNICEF India also reaffirmed support for diverting young people from formal penal processes and building protective community environments. Together, these approaches point toward responses that keep children connected to supportive settings while addressing their needs.

The article does not list specific alternative-care models or explain when each should be used. It does show that alternatives were part of the consultation’s review. Future priorities will therefore include examining how such care works across institutions and jurisdictions, alongside safeguards for children in conflict with law.

Treating involvement in an offence as a circumstance recognises that childhood is a stage of development, not a permanent label. The approach separates what may have happened from who the child is. That distinction supports rehabilitation, dignity, and the possibility of change.

At the consultation, CJI Surya Kant emphasised that “child in conflict with law” describes a circumstance, not an identity. Supreme Court judge B V Nagarathna expressed the related principle that “when a child breaks the law, the law must not break the child.” These statements place the child’s welfare at the centre of legal response.

This foundation also explains the focus on child-friendly procedures and diversion from formal penal processes. The article links those goals to UNICEF India’s partnership with the judiciary. As implementation enters its next decade, institutions are expected to preserve safeguards and avoid responses that permanently stigmatise children.