Justice Nagarathna flags gaps in implementation of Juvenile Justice Act at National Annual Stakeholders Consultation

Justice B.V. Nagarathna said the main problem is implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The system must do more than process files. It must protect children, provide support, and guide them toward rehabilitation and reintegration. She questioned whether key institutions are properly staffed and supported.

Her concerns included delays before Juvenile Justice Boards, incomplete teams, inadequate support for Child Welfare Committees, and legal aid that may be only formal. She also asked whether Social Investigation Reports and individual care plans are timely and meaningful. The study cited found that 111 of 470 responding Boards lacked their full team.

The scale of delay is serious. The India Justice Report found 55% of cases pending across 18 States and two Union Territories, with more than 55,000 children awaiting decisions. Justice Nagarathna stressed that education, counselling, medical care, and legal assistance must continue while cases are pending. Better implementation is the consultation’s central priority.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, sets the legal framework for responding to children who come into contact with the juvenile justice system or require protection. Its purpose is not simply to decide cases. It also requires care, protection, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

The Act covers two groups. Children in conflict with law are handled through Juvenile Justice Boards. Children in need of care and protection are handled through Child Welfare Committees. These bodies help identify a child’s circumstances, arrange protection and representation, and decide suitable interventions.

The article presents the Act as a child-centred system. Children should receive education, counselling, medical care, and legal assistance during proceedings. Institutional care should be used only when necessary. Family restoration, foster care, and adoption should be pursued when appropriate, always keeping the child’s best interests and individual circumstances in view.

The backlog before Juvenile Justice Boards is substantial. A November 2025 study by the India Justice Report found that 55% of cases across 18 States and two Union Territories were pending. This means that more than half of the cases in the study had not yet been decided.

The study covered 1,00,904 cases before 362 Boards. Of these, 45,097 cases were disposed of. It also reported that more than 55,000 children were awaiting decisions. These figures show why Justice B.V. Nagarathna described implementation as the central challenge.

The delay matters because a pending case is also a period in a child’s life. The system must provide education, counselling, medical care, and legal assistance during that time. Faster decisions are important, but the wider goal remains rehabilitation and reintegration rather than disposal alone. The consultation seeks improvements across States and Union Territories.

Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees serve different groups under the Juvenile Justice Act. Boards deal with children in conflict with law. Committees deal with children in need of care and protection. The distinction matters because these children reach the system for different reasons and need different forms of intervention.

The State must identify each child’s circumstances, provide protection and representation, determine an appropriate intervention, and work toward rehabilitation and reintegration. A Board may therefore address a child’s case in conflict with law, while a Committee may focus on protection, family circumstances, and care arrangements.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned whether both institutions are functioning effectively. She asked whether Boards have their full complement and whether Committees are adequately supported. The cited study found that 111 of 470 responding Boards lacked a principal magistrate and two social-worker members. Strong institutions are essential to fair, individualised decisions.

A delayed case affects more than the date of a final decision. While proceedings remain pending, a child may need education, counselling, medical care, and legal assistance. Justice B.V. Nagarathna said the system must ensure these forms of support throughout the process, not treat them as optional additions.

For example, a child awaiting a Juvenile Justice Board decision should still receive care suited to the child’s circumstances. Legal aid should be meaningful rather than merely formal. Social Investigation Reports and individual care plans should also be timely and methodical, so that decisions respond to the child rather than only to the case file.

The article does not give a separate measurement of harm caused by each delay. It does show the broader risk: a child may remain without an effective intervention while waiting. The system therefore needs timely decisions alongside continuous support, protection, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

The Act treats institutional care as a last resort for children in need of care and protection. The article emphasises that children should be restored to their families wherever possible, while keeping their best interests in mind. This approach centres the child’s individual circumstances rather than using one arrangement for everyone.

Family-based care may include restoring a child to their family, placing the child in foster care, or pursuing adoption when restoration is not possible. Justice B.V. Nagarathna specifically asked whether foster care and adoption are functioning with the required urgency. These options are part of determining the appropriate intervention for each child.

The principle has practical consequences. Child Welfare Committees and the State must identify circumstances, provide protection and representation, and choose a suitable care plan. Institutional placement should not become the default response. Family-based solutions should be encouraged when safe and appropriate, with rehabilitation and reintegration as the larger aim.

Disposing of a case answers a procedural question: whether the matter before the authority has been decided. Rehabilitation asks a deeper question: whether the child has received the care, support, and intervention needed to move forward. Justice B.V. Nagarathna warned that closing a case does not itself mean a child has been helped.

A child may need education, counselling, medical care, legal assistance, or a family-based care plan. The State must assess the child’s circumstances, provide protection and representation, select the appropriate intervention, and work toward rehabilitation and reintegration. Individual care plans should therefore be genuinely individual.

This principle explains her statement that the law must not break the child. Current concerns about delays, incomplete Boards, uneven preliminary assessments, and support for children with disabilities show why process quality matters. The next decade should focus on fair, reasoned decisions that protect each child’s best interests, not simply on reducing pending numbers.