Juvenile Justice In India: Tracing The Shift From Punishment To Rehabilitation
- IJLLR Journal
- May 15
- 2 min read
Abhilasha, BBA LLB (H), Department of Law, School of Legal Studies, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (A Central University), Lucknow
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the epistemological development of juvenile justice in India with specific reference to the paradigm shift from punitive to a rehabilitative scheme. Initially, juvenile justice in India mirrored British policies, which viewed children in conflict with the law as miniature adults and thus subjected them to identical punitive measures through the Indian Penal Code (1860). The dominant philosophy was one of deterrence disciplining children by fear instead of taking into account their developmental requirements. After independence, India slowly started reinventing juvenile justice with a more child-oriented approach, understanding that children are fundamentally different from adults in terms of their cognitive, emotional, and moral abilities. This change accelerated with India's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 (hereinafter called as UNCRC) in 1992. Under this change, by embracing a Eurocentric framework that conceives of children as right- holding persons, the Indian system of juvenile justice transitioned toward an approach emphasizing protection, rehabilitation, and reintegration rather than punishment.
The central legacy of this transformation is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015(hereinafter called as JJ Act,2015), which embodies the rehabilitative ideal through prioritization of the child's best interests, the right to a second chance, and the aim of social reintegration. This paper follows the historical and philosophical evolution from colonial punitive models to the modern rehabilitative ideals, both marking progress and the ongoing challenges to realization of the vision. In spite of positive legal reforms, large disparities between the law's rehabilitative intent and its disparate practice in action continue to persist.
Keywords: juvenile justice, populist punitiveness, retribution, rehabilitation
