Juvenile justice committee

What is ‘Juvenile Justice Committee’

Juvenile Justice in India provides special treatment and protection to children in conflict with the law, as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act. Each High Court has a Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) to oversee the proper implementation of these laws. The committees coordinate with various stakeholders, including the police, child welfare departments, legal services, and NGOs, to inspect juvenile homes, monitor institutions, and recommend improvements. JJCs across states also ensure compliance with the JJ Act, focusing on providing legal, psychological, and educational support for children, and enhancing conditions in children's homes.

Official Definition of ‘Juvenile Justice Committee’

A Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) is set up within each High Court to oversee and ensure the proper implementation of laws concerning children in conflict with the law, as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act (erstwhile 2000 and the new law of 2015). These committees work to safeguard the rights of children, making sure they receive the necessary legal protection and care. However, since each JJC interprets its role differently, there is currently no standard framework guiding its activities, leading to variations in how it operates across different states.

The beginning of the Juvenile Justice Committees of the Supreme Court and the High Courts can be traced back to the resolutions passed by the Chief Justices’ Conference from 2006 to 2016. The Chief Justices’ Conference 2013 specifically resolute to set up in all High Courts the Secretariat of Juvenile Justice Committee to monitor the implementation of the provisions of the Act in their true spirit.

‘Juvenile Justice Committee’ as defined in legislation(s)

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is the most essential legal instrument and bedrock of juvenile justice law in India which prescribes constricting standards in securing the ‘best interest of the child’. An umbrella-like legislation has been enacted i.e. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to protect and promote the rights of children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection.

The High Court Juvenile Justice Committees are guided essentially by the core objectives and Principles from the Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in fulfilling their roles and mandates with respect to the rights of children.

‘Juvenile Justice Committee’ as defined in official government report(s)

The Juvenile Justice Committees play a pivotal role in upholding the principles of juvenile justice by ensuring that children's rights are protected and that they receive appropriate care and rehabilitation. The Guiding Framework seeks to standardize and enhance the effectiveness of these committees, contributing to a more robust and child-centered juvenile justice system in India. The JJ Act of 2015, incorporates fundamental principles that align with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which India ratified in 1992. These principles emphasize the ‘best interest of the child’.

Guiding Framework for High Court Juvenile Justice Committees (HC-JJCs)

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had formulated a Guiding Framework for Juvenile Justice Committees of High Courts that aims to provide clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the HC-JJCs, ensuring compliance with both legislative and international standards. The Framework is designed to be flexible, allowing for customization and enhancement by the HC-JJCs. It serves as a broad guideline outlining fundamental responsibilities and intervention possibilities to strengthen juvenile justice systems across states.

Role of HC-JJC in Monitoring and Evaluation

1. The JJC is to be a policy-making body with supervisory and monitoring functions; whilst the Secretariat that will be set up for the HC-JJC will assist in fulfilling all responsibilities of the JJC.
2. Setting up of Juvenile Justice System in the State – to monitor if all the below mentioned institutions/ authorities/ units have been set up under the JJ Act and the guiding JJ Rules:
   1. Inspection Committee(s) and Monitoring Authorities for Institutions
   2. Child Welfare Committees (CWC) for a district or a group of districts
   3. Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB) for a district or a group of districts
   4. State Child Protection Society
   5. District Child Protection Units
   6. Special Juvenile Police Units in every district
   7. Child Welfare Police Officer
   8. Designated juvenile police officers in every police station
   9. Juvenile Justice Fund
   10. Registration of Child Care Institutions (CCIs) under the JJ Act.
3. Seek and evaluate a quarterly report from the Department of Women and Child on the existing status of the setting-up of the institutions/ authorities/ units as per the JJ Act, 2015, and the guiding JJ Rules.
4. Impress upon the Department of Women and Child Development to upgrade the mechanism of supervision of CCIs, through effective use of technology, wherever possible enabling effective supervision, in a non-intrusive manner.
5. Seek and evaluate a quarterly report from the District Judges on the pendency and disposal of cases under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012; The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), 1956; trafficking cases under Sec. 370 and 370A of the Indian Penal Code; The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986; and The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
6. Monitor quarterly reports from Court Appointed State state-level monitoring Committees (wherever appointed) with such Committees at district levels to give regular reports on the functioning of the institutions under the JJ Act, 2015.
7. Seek assistance from the District Legal Services Authority on the disbursement of victim compensation funds to child victims (such as, under any Scheme/ Fund awarding compensation; or the Nirbhaya Fund; or Sec. 357A of Cr. PC.; or the Central Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labour, 2016; and others).
8. Require the Department of Women and Child to annually submit reports of Social Audits of the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) and Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) for purposes of monitoring its implementation.
9. Require the Department of Women and Child to submit biannual reports for the first two years and subsequently annual reports, on the steps taken by the state government to ensure “universalization with equality”, wherein all ICDS services (supplementary nutrition, growth monitoring, nutrition and health education, immunization, referral and pre-school education) must be extended to every child under the age of six.
10. Prepare an Annual Report on the functioning of the JJ system.
11. Where the High Court has more than one bench, the Chief Justice of the High Court may constitute a Sub-Committee in other Benches. The main HC-JJC will, however, remain overall responsible for implementing the Framework as laid out herein.
12. Organize preferably in coordination with National/ State Legal Services Authority or State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights, sensitization and training programs and periodic refresher courses for police officials, prosecutors, judicial officers, members of CWCs and JJBs, Probation Officers, and other child rights institutions and authorities.

Role of HC-JJC in Coordination, Co-operation & Coherence

1. Hold regular review meetings, preferably once a month, with the concerned departments, functionaries, NGOs, and others to monitor the implementation of the JJ Act, 2015 and to resolve systemic, operational, and attitudinal challenges that hinder linkages between the juvenile justice functionaries and other government agencies.
2. Seek compliance reports from concerned departments and others on the orders passed by the JJC.
3. Endeavor to improve convergence between the criminal justice system, child-friendly courts, and vulnerable witness courts vis-à-vis child protection system towards a ‘child-centered’ approach during the child’s interface with the criminal justice system and towards a more effective rehabilitation and reintegration.
4. The Department of Women and Child may whenever possible, involve Corporate Social Responsibility components of the business sector and Public Sector Units, towards infrastructure development, entrepreneurship, and skill building of adolescents, for providing quality care and services within CCIs, and for other relevant purposes. Since the JJC monitors the CCIs, the Department could be advised of this activity, as and when required.
5. Encourage the Department of Women and Child and CCIs, towards providing skill development programmes for economic empowerment and reintegration of children after their release from CCIs.
6. Direct the Secretariat of the HC-JJC to organize conferences for getting all stakeholders to deliberate on urgent issues pertaining to child development and child protection within the State.

‘Juvenile Justice Committee’ as defined in case law(s)

Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (CRL.) No.102 of 2007

The Supreme Court in Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India and Ors. highlighted that, the Juvenile Justice Committee is tasked with overseeing the implementation of laws protecting children’s rights, including ensuring that child care institutions operate according to legal standards. This Committee plays a vital role in guiding the judicial process concerning juvenile justice and monitoring the conditions in child care institutions. The Court emphasized that the Committee’s involvement is necessary to uphold the constitutional obligations to safeguard children’s rights. The Committee’s responsibilities include coordinating with State officials, ensuring child care institutions meet minimum standards of care, and preparing individual child care plans. The Court directed that the Juvenile Justice Committees must be supported by a Secretariat and that all necessary assistance must be provided by State Governments to these Committees to facilitate their work​.

Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India and Ors,(2018) 4 SCC 433

The Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) was established following recommendations from the Chief Justices’ Conferences held in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2015 and 2016 to ensure the effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and later, the 2015 Act. These committees, set up in every High Court and typically headed by a High Court judge, were tasked with monitoring the functioning of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs), Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), and other child protection institutions. Their role included overseeing the living conditions of children in observation and remand homes and ensuring that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act were followed in true spirit. Despite being set up by 2013, it was highlighted in the 2016 Supreme Court proceedings in Sampurna Behura v. Union of India & Ors that many states were still not fully compliant, and the functioning of these institutions needed significant improvements. The Supreme Court also underscored the importance of these committees in driving reforms and enhancing child protection services, urging state governments to cooperate in filling institutional gaps and ensuring proper care and protection for vulnerable children.

Legal provision(s) relating to ‘Juvenile Justice Committee’

Currently, there is no guiding framework for the functioning of the JJCs of the different High Courts, and each one functions according to their distinct understanding of their role in the implementation of the JJ Act. Out of 25 High Courts in India only 13 High courts have setup the Juvenile Justice Committees [the HCs that have established JJCs are: Kerala (2010), Karnataka (2012), Delhi (2013), Chhattisgarh (2015), Madhya Pradesh (2016), Meghalaya (2016), Guwahati (2017), Jharkhand (2017), Orissa (2017), Sikkim (2017), Patna (2018), Punjab & Haryana (2018), Calcutta (2018)].

International Experience

Unlike India’s more fragmented approach with individual High Courts interpreting roles separately, Australia’s model brings uniformity to juvenile justice data and policy formulation. Australia’s model provides useful insights into how India might approach developing a centralized framework for Juvenile Justice Committees, ensuring better coordination, data collection, and monitoring across states.

Australia’s Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set (JJ NMDS) is a comprehensive data collection initiative that tracks the flow of young people through the juvenile justice system. It collects and publishes detailed data on various aspects of juvenile justice across states and territories, including the Demographics of juveniles in detention or under supervision, Offense types and case outcomes, Length and nature of detention, Data on community-based supervision. This centralized database helps ensure a uniform approach to managing juvenile justice, enabling both state and federal agencies to monitor and respond to juvenile justice issues consistently across Australia.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) manages this data set, which offers reports and statistics on young people involved in the system, both in detention and under community supervision. This system allows for consistent data collection across all states, giving policymakers a clearer understanding of the national juvenile justice landscape.

Challenges

Inconsistencies in the Scope

The High Court’s Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) operates according to its own interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act); this flexibility might lead to a misunderstanding or an underestimation of the actual scope of their responsibilities. This significant drawback in the functioning of JJCs across different High Courts in India is the absence of a standardized framework guiding their operations. While the flexibility in interpreting their roles under the Juvenile Justice Act (erstwhile 2000 and 2015) allows for context-specific interventions, it can also lead to inconsistencies and a potential narrowing of their perceived mandate. Without a unified approach, JJCs may inadvertently limit their scope of action, reducing the effectiveness of their efforts in ensuring a robust juvenile justice system across the country.

One of the key challenges faced by Juvenile Justice Committees (JJC) in India is the lack of institutional mechanisms and statutory recognition for their operations. While the committees play a critical role in overseeing the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act, there is no formal, statutory framework that mandates their structure, functions, or the resources needed for their effective functioning. This absence of institutional backing hampers their ability to perform their duties with full efficacy. The committees often rely on voluntary efforts and ad-hoc coordination between various stakeholders, which can lead to inconsistencies in monitoring juvenile justice systems across different regions. The lack of statutory recognition also affects their ability to enforce recommendations and actions, limiting their capacity to bring about systemic reforms in juvenile justice institutions.

Related terms

Juvenile Justice Committee Secretariats

The Supreme Court Judgments in Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India and Ors. (05.05.2017) and Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India and Ors (09.02.2018) urged for the establishment of the Juvenile Justice Secretariats to render assistance to the Juvenile Justice Committee of each High Court and to cooperate and collaborate with the Juvenile Justice Committee in this regard.

As per the ‘Guiding Framework for Juvenile Justice Committees of High Courts’, the roles and responsibilities of the Secretariat of the HC-JJCs are:

1. The Secretariats of the HC-JJCs, should be staffed with judicial and/ or administrative officers of the High Court working on a full time basis. Support and assistance of any external agency should be taken on the basis of specific requirements only.
2. The role and responsibilities of the Secretariat would be to primarily assist and support the HC-JJC in fulfilling its responsibilities.
3. Provide all relevant information to the HC-JJC on all issues pertaining to children, and to essentially fill in the information gaps which may otherwise not reach the notice of the HC-JJC due to the geographical remoteness of the incident.
4. Issue communication on behalf of the HC-JJC, to the concerned department/ official, calling for submission of Status/ Monitoring Reports before the date of HC-JJC meeting; intimate time and venue for the meeting; and ensuring presence of concerned officials.
5. Listing of the identified area/ issues on the Agenda of HC-JJC and fixing a date for the meeting, along with relevant supporting documents/ reports/ Action Taken Report, and others.
6. Drafting Agenda, preparation of minutes, and coordination and follow up with concerned departments/ officials of HC-JJC meetings.
7. Organize conferences, seminars, consultations on the directions of the HC-JJC, by identifying the theme, and relevant participants.
8. Building and maintaining necessary information resources, which may be relevant for HC-JJC (copies of bare Acts, judgments of Supreme Court and all High Courts on matters related to JJ Act, 2015, research reports, news clippings, and others).
9. Any other additional duties and responsibilities as may be entrusted by the HC-JJC.

Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB)

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is an institutional body constituted under Section 4 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015). According to the division of powers under the Indian Constitution, the subject of the administration of criminal justice falls under the State List (List II, Schedule VII), which gives the State Government the responsibility to establish one or more JJBs in each district. The primary role of the JJB is to exercise powers and discharge functions related to children in conflict with the law, as defined under Section 2(13) of the JJ Act, 2015.

86% of the States and UTs (28 out of 35) have constituted a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in every district. However, only in 13 States and UTs, the JJBs sit for 20 or more days in a month. These are - Bihar, Chandigarh, Delhi, Jharkhand, Lakshadweep, Maharashtra, Manipur, Odisha, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.

Overriding Effect and Enabling Nature of Section 4

Section 4 of the JJ Act, 2015 begins with a ‘saving clause,’ giving it an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. This means that the provisions laid down in Section 4 take precedence over the CrPC when dealing with juveniles in conflict with the law. This ‘notwithstanding clause’ provides the JJB with the authority to operate independently of certain procedures outlined in the CrPC. This principle was elaborated in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram (AIR 1987 SC 117), establishing that such clauses grant full operational effect to the specific law.

Procedure of the Juvenile Justice Board

The procedure for the JJB is outlined in Section 7 of the JJ Act, 2015. The Board is required to meet regularly to conduct business and ensure that all procedures are child-friendly, with venues that are non-intimidating for the child. The Board must strive to create an environment conducive to the child’s comfort and safety, aligning with the child-sensitive approach mandated by the Act.

Decision-Making Process

In the event of a disagreement among the members of the Board regarding interim or final decisions, two possible resolutions are outlined. Either the majority opinion prevails, or, in the absence of a majority, the Principal Magistrate’s opinion will be final. This provision ensures the Board can continue to function efficiently, even in cases of differing opinions among members.

Powers of Individual Board Members

In situations where the full Board is not sitting, any individual member of the Board is empowered to handle urgent matters, including the production of a child in conflict with the law. Additionally, if any member of the Board is absent, the Board is still authorized to pass orders, and such decisions cannot be invalidated merely due to the absence of a member during any stage of the proceedings. This provision ensures continuity in the functioning of the JJB and prevents unnecessary delays in handling juvenile cases.

Child Welfare Committees (CWC)

The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) is an autonomous body established under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to address the needs of children in need of care and protection. According to Section 27 of Chapter V of the Act, it is mandatory to form one or more CWCs in every district. These committees are integral to the implementation of child protection laws, ensuring that children who are abandoned, abused, or neglected receive appropriate care and support.

Each CWC is composed of a Chairperson and four other members appointed by the State Government. The Chairperson and members must have substantial experience or expertise in areas related to child welfare. Specifically, at least one member must be a woman, and another should be an expert in child-related matters, such as child sociology, psychiatry, psychology, law, or human development. To qualify for membership, individuals should have been actively involved in health, education, or welfare activities concerning children for a minimum of seven years, or possess a relevant professional degree.

The District Child Protection Unit provides secretarial support to the CWC, ensuring its effective functioning. This support includes a Secretary and other staff to handle administrative tasks. The term of appointment for a CWC member is up to three years, with the possibility of termination if the member misuses their power, is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude (unless pardoned or the conviction reversed), or fails to attend a significant number of committee meetings (three out of four in a year). The District Magistrate is responsible for reviewing the Committee's performance every three months.

The CWC operates as a bench, guided by the powers conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This means that individuals connected to a child can file petitions with the District Magistrate, who will consider the case and issue appropriate orders. The CWC's role is crucial in ensuring that children in need of care and protection receive timely and effective interventions, aligning with the legal framework designed to safeguard their rights and well-being.