Children In Conflict With Law And Rehabilitation
🔹 Meaning of Children in Conflict with Law (CCL)
Children in Conflict with Law are those under the age of 18 years who have been alleged or found to have committed an offence under any law in force.
This concept is governed in India by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015). The Act is a reformative and rehabilitative law, not a punitive one.
🔹 Classification of Offences under JJ Act
Petty Offences – punishable with imprisonment of up to 3 years.
Serious Offences – punishment between 3 to 7 years.
Heinous Offences – punishment of more than 7 years (e.g., murder, rape).
🔹 Objectives of Juvenile Justice System
Rehabilitation over punishment.
Restoration of the child to their family/social environment.
Psychological support and counselling.
Education and vocational training.
Prevention of recidivism.
🔹 Key Provisions for Rehabilitation under JJ Act, 2015
Observation Homes – temporary reception for children during inquiry.
Special Homes – for children found guilty of committing offences.
Fit Facilities & Persons – homes or individuals certified to care for juveniles.
Individual Care Plans – to address each child’s specific needs.
Aftercare Programs – continued support post-release.
🔹 Landmark Case Laws on CCL and Rehabilitation
⚖️ 1. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551
Facts:
Pratap Singh was accused of a serious offence (murder).
The case centered around whether he was a juvenile on the date of the offence.
Held:
The date of the offence is crucial to determine juvenility, not the date of arrest or trial.
The court upheld that the benefit of juvenility must be given if the person was below 18 years on the date of offence.
Significance:
Established that juvenility must be considered retrospectively.
Reinforced the idea that reform, not retribution, is the goal for juveniles.
⚖️ 2. Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1981 AIR 2037)
Facts:
The appellant was convicted for a violent crime, and claimed to be a juvenile.
The age was disputed and no conclusive birth record was available.
Held:
In absence of valid proof, medical opinion on age was accepted.
The court emphasized giving the benefit of doubt regarding age to the accused.
Significance:
Affirmed that medical evidence + school records can help establish age.
Promoted a child-friendly interpretation of the law.
⚖️ 3. Gaurav Kumar @ Monu v. State of Haryana (2021 SCC OnLine SC 190)
Facts:
Gaurav Kumar committed a heinous offence when he was 16 years and 10 months old.
The Juvenile Justice Board ordered a preliminary assessment to decide whether he should be tried as an adult.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the JJ Board’s discretion in sending heinous cases (children above 16 years) to Children’s Court after assessment.
But emphasized that such assessments must be done carefully and sensitively, considering the child’s mental capacity and understanding.
Significance:
Balanced child rights with public safety.
Provided clarity on handling heinous offences by juveniles under the 2015 Act.
⚖️ 4. Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705
Facts:
A PIL challenged the constitutional validity of treating persons below 18 years as juveniles, especially in heinous crimes.
Held:
The Supreme Court refused to lower the age of juvenility.
Held that the age of 18 is in line with international obligations (UN Convention on Rights of Child).
Significance:
Upheld the principle of universal childhood till 18 years.
Emphasized the reformative approach and international standards of juvenile justice.
⚖️ 5. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986 AIR 1773)
Facts:
Journalist Sheela Barse highlighted the inhuman conditions in which juveniles were being kept in jails.
Held:
Supreme Court passed guidelines for separate detention of juveniles.
Directed the state to create Observation Homes and to avoid detaining juveniles in regular jails.
Significance:
A major step toward institutional reforms and rehabilitation.
Recognized the importance of treating child offenders differently from adults.
🔹 Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Age determination | Must be below 18 on date of offence; benefit of doubt given |
| Rehabilitation priority | Reform, not punishment, is the goal |
| Heinous offences (16-18 yrs) | Can be tried as adults after mental assessment |
| Separate institutions | Juveniles cannot be kept in adult jails |
| International obligations | Indian law aligned with UNCRC |
🔹 Conclusion
The Indian juvenile justice system ensures that children in conflict with law are not treated as criminals, but as individuals who need care, guidance, and opportunities to reform. Courts have consistently protected this spirit by emphasizing rehabilitation over retribution.
The above cases show how the judiciary plays a pivotal role in safeguarding child rights, interpreting the law liberally, and ensuring that the justice system remains child-centric.
RELATED Blog
0 comments