Juvenile Justice and Sexual Offenses: Legal Safeguards and Controversies

Abstract

The Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act in India serves as a crucial legal framework for managing cases involving young individuals in conflict with the law, emphasizing their protection, rehabilitation, and reformation. This article examines how the JJ Act addresses sexual offenses that involve minors, whether as victims or alleged offenders. It highlights the support mechanisms for juvenile victims, such as trauma-informed care and assistance from Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), as well as the establishment of safe rehabilitation environments. For juvenile offenders, the Act differentiates between petty, serious, and heinous offenses, allowing those aged 16-18 to face adult trials for more severe crimes under Section 15. Landmark cases are discussed to illustrate how recent rulings have influenced the enforcement of specific sections, focusing on public safety and the principles of reformative justice. The article ultimately suggests potential improvements to the JJ Act, advocating for the inclusion of restorative justice methods, standardized psychological evaluations, and preventive education programs. These modifications could enhance the balance between accountability and rehabilitation, facilitating the evolution of the juvenile justice system to become more socially attuned.

Keywords: Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO Act, juvenile offenders, sexual crimes, rehabilitation, restorative justice, Child Welfare Committees, juvenile victims, reformative justice, legal safeguards.

Introduction

The Juvenile Justice (JJ)[1] Act in India is pivotal in shaping how cases involving minors are treated within the criminal justice system. With a strong emphasis on protection, rehabilitation, and reform, the Act plays a crucial role in addressing juvenile participation in sexual offenses, whether as victims or offenders. It prioritizes rehabilitative approaches over punitive measures, aiming to reintegrate young offenders into society while safeguarding the interests of victims through a supportive legal framework.

A specialized strategy for handling sexual offenses in the juvenile justice context is essential. Juvenile victims of such offenses are highly susceptible to psychological and emotional distress, necessitating careful and compassionate treatment to prevent further trauma. Meanwhile, juvenile offenders, often influenced by their environment and developmental stages, require rehabilitation strategies that recognize their ability to change. Tackling the complexities surrounding juvenile sexual offenses involves a delicate balance of societal safety, the offenders’ potential for rehabilitation, and the victims’ right to justice and recovery.

To address these varied priorities, the JJ Act[2] outlines a classification for juvenile offenses based on severity—petty, serious, and heinous (as defined in Sections 2(45)[3], 2(54)[4], and 2(33)[5]). Heinous offenses, including certain severe sexual crimes that carry a minimum sentence of seven years, are particularly critical. Under Section 15[6], the Act empowers the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)[7] to evaluate juveniles aged 16-18 accused of heinous offenses and determine if they should be tried as adults. This assessment considers factors such as the juvenile’s maturity, understanding of their actions, and potential for rehabilitation before making a decision on adult trial proceedings.

For juvenile victims, the JJ Act[8], in conjunction with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO)[9] Act, provides a framework centered on trauma-informed care. It ensures that victims receive legal protections, support services, and guidance from Child Welfare Committees (CWCs)[10] to help them navigate the legal process. This structure promotes confidentiality, offers safe housing, and provides access to psychological counseling and rehabilitation services to support their healing journey.

The JJ Act’s dual focus on accountability and rehabilitation underscores its dedication to both protecting juvenile victims and reforming juvenile offenders. Its thoughtful provisions reflect an awareness of the unique developmental needs of juveniles, enabling India’s juvenile justice system to effectively address the sensitive issue of juvenile involvement in sexual offenses while fostering an environment geared towards societal safety and the potential for positive transformation.

Also read: Juvenile Justice in India: Should Minors Be Tried as Adults for Serious Crimes?

Understanding and Addressing the Needs of Juveniles Affected by Sexual Offenses

Sexual offenses involving juveniles are an incredibly sensitive issue within the juvenile justice system. It is crucial to create a supportive environment that prioritizes the safety and rights of young survivors while adopting a trauma-informed approach. In India, the Juvenile Justice (JJ)[11] Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO)[12] Act serve as the primary legal frameworks designed to protect juvenile victims. This overview will highlight the key legal protections available to these victims and examine the challenges that continue to exist within both legal and social support systems.

Key Legal Protections for Juvenile Victims

Legal Frameworks: JJ and POCSO Acts

The JJ Act[13] and the POCSO Act[14] together establish comprehensive legal safeguards for children who are victims of sexual offenses. The POCSO Act[15] aims to prevent sexual abuse and exploitation of minors by defining various offenses and imposing stringent penalties on offenders. The Act also ensures that each stage of the legal process is conducted in a child-friendly manner, prioritizing the well-being of victims and minimizing additional trauma.

Support from Child Welfare Committees (CWCs)[16]

CWCs are essential in protecting and rehabilitating juvenile victims. These committees provide a safe space for children, ensuring they receive the necessary legal aid, medical attention, and psychological support. By working closely with law enforcement and healthcare providers, CWCs facilitate a compassionate journey through the justice system, making it more accessible and empathetic.

Comprehensive Victim Support Services[17]

A robust support system for juvenile victims includes:

• Counseling Services: Professional counseling helps children process their trauma and regain emotional strength.
• Rehabilitation Programs: These initiatives focus on the long-term recovery of victims, aiding their reintegration into society.
• Safe Housing: Victims at risk of further abuse can be placed in secure facilities designed to provide safety and support.

Also read: JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND JUVENILE JUSTICE IN INDIA: AN OVERVIEW

Ongoing Challenges in Protecting Juvenile Victims

Despite existing legal safeguards, several hurdles remain in effectively supporting juvenile victims of sexual offenses:

Identification and Prosecution of Offenders

A significant challenge is identifying and prosecuting offenders, especially in cases involving family or close acquaintances. The hidden nature of abuse often leads to underreporting, making it difficult for authorities to intervene early.

Navigating the Legal System

For many juvenile victims, the process of reporting abuse and engaging with the legal system can be daunting. Even with child-friendly measures in place, the potential for re-traumatization and societal stigma can deter victims from seeking justice.

Concerns of Confidentiality and Re-Victimization

Maintaining confidentiality is vital for the well-being of juvenile victims, but it is often compromised, leading to social stigma and psychological harm. Victims may face further isolation and mental health challenges as a result of societal biases surrounding sexual offenses.

These challenges underscore the urgent need for enhanced legal protections and societal support for juvenile victims. By implementing more child-centered approaches within judicial processes and increasing public awareness, we can work towards providing effective protection and support for these vulnerable individuals.

Juveniles as Perpetrators of Sexual Offenses

In India, the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act[18] offers a structured framework for addressing cases where minors are accused of sexual offenses, striking a balance between justice, accountability, and rehabilitation. This legislation includes specific legal provisions tailored to different offense levels, particularly concerning juveniles involved in serious crimes. Below is a clear overview of the essential legal sections of the JJ Act[19] that pertain to juvenile offenders accused of sexual offenses.

Also read: Juvenile Justice Reform: Balancing Rehabilitation and Punishment in India

Key Provisions for Juveniles Accused of Sexual Offenses

Legal Framework Under the JJ Act

The JJ Act emphasizes a thoughtful and compassionate approach to juvenile offenders, including those facing allegations of sexual crimes. According to Section 8[20] of the JJ Act, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)[21] has the authority to manage these cases, prioritizing rehabilitation while also ensuring proper legal procedures are followed. For cases involving sexual offenses, the JJB is tasked with conducting essential evaluations, such as psychological assessments, to gain insights into the juvenile’s mental health and background.

Section 15[22] elaborates on the types of measures the JJB can implement for juvenile offenders, which may include counseling, probation, supervision, community service, and participation in rehabilitative programs. This focus on rehabilitation aims to help minors reintegrate into society while addressing the underlying issues that may have contributed to their actions.

Understanding the Different Types of Juvenile Offenses

The Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act classifies offenses committed by juveniles into three distinct categories: petty, serious, and heinous. Each category reflects the severity of the offense and influences how juvenile cases are managed.

• Petty Offenses: According to Section 2(45)[23], petty offenses are minor infractions that usually carry a punishment of up to three years in prison under standard laws. These offenses typically do not result in detention; instead, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) emphasizes rehabilitation through methods like counseling, probation, or other support services as outlined in Section 18[24].
• Serious Offenses: As defined in Section 2(54)[25], serious offenses involve crimes that can lead to imprisonment for a period of three to seven years. This category includes certain sexual misconduct cases that do not meet the criteria for heinous offenses. Juveniles charged with serious offenses are dealt with in the juvenile justice system, focusing on non-punitive approaches, such as counseling and behavior modification programs to aid their development.
• Heinous Offenses: Section 2(33)[26] describes heinous offenses as those punishable by a minimum of seven years in prison. This category includes severe sexual crimes, like aggravated sexual assault, which require more stringent examination. Juveniles accused of these offenses face stricter judicial processes, particularly those aged 16 to 18, who may be transferred to adult courts for trial.

Alternative Overview on Provisions for Juveniles Aged 16-18 Involved in Serious Crimes

One of the most discussed elements of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act is Section 15(1), which permits the trial of juveniles aged 16 to 18 as adults when they are charged with serious offenses. This provision emerged from public demand for accountability in severe cases, particularly those involving serious sexual crimes. Under Section 15(3), the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is tasked with evaluating the juvenile’s mental and physical maturity, as well as their understanding of the repercussions of their actions, to decide whether they should be tried within the juvenile system or moved to an adult court.

Trial and Rehabilitation Framework

Emphasis on Punishment vs. Rehabilitation

The JJ Act strives to find a balance between punishment and rehabilitation for young offenders. Section 18[27] outlines various orders the JJB can issue, such as community service, probation, counseling, and rehabilitation center placements, as alternatives to incarceration, except in the most serious cases. This highlights the Act’s commitment to reformative justice, particularly for juveniles navigating critical developmental phases.

Function of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs)

JJBs are crucial in handling juvenile cases, as stated in Section 8, determining the most appropriate responses based on the juvenile’s age, maturity level, and the nature of the offense. They decide whether rehabilitative measures are fitting or if the juvenile needs stricter intervention. Section 9(3)[28] allows for transferring juveniles aged 16-18 charged with serious crimes to adult courts if they demonstrate sufficient maturity and intent.

Access to Effective Reformative and Rehabilitative Programs

Section 18[29] also promotes a variety of rehabilitative initiatives for young offenders, such as educational and vocational training programs. Observation Homes and Special Homes, as described in Sections 47[30] and 48[31], offer settings conducive to rehabilitation, focusing on counseling, skill acquisition, and behavioral improvement.

Overall, the JJ Act establishes a detailed framework for addressing juvenile offenses, tailoring responses to the offense’s severity and the potential for reform. By differentiating between minor, serious, and heinous offenses and allowing for specialized treatment of juveniles accused of serious sexual crimes, the Act aims to align justice with opportunities for personal development and successful reintegration into society.

Exploring the Complex Landscape of Juvenile Sexual Offenses

The topic of how sexual offenses by juveniles are handled under the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act has sparked considerable discussion and differing opinions. This conversation often focuses on navigating the challenging intersection of justice and rehabilitation, especially given the intricate factors at play in juvenile behavior, including psychological development and societal influences. This overview delves into some of the key issues surrounding juvenile justice when it comes to sexual offenses, emphasizing the critical topics of age of criminal responsibility, the tension between rehabilitation and punishment, and the impact of psychological and social factors.

Age of Criminal Responsibility in Sexual Offenses

A primary point of contention related to the JJ Act is the established age at which a juvenile can be deemed criminally responsible, particularly concerning serious crimes like sexual offenses. According to Section 15(1) of the Act, juveniles aged 16 to 18 may face adult charges if accused of grievous offenses carrying penalties of seven years or more. This provision was introduced in response to increasing public demand for accountability in light of severe crimes committed by juveniles. Section 2(33) of the JJ Act categorizes heinous offenses as those with a minimum seven-year sentence, which can encompass various sexual assault cases, leading some juveniles to face trial as adults.

The discourse around possibly lowering the age of criminal responsibility for specific crimes, notably sexual offenses, often intensifies due to high-profile cases where juveniles have been implicated in severe crimes. Proponents of adjusting this age framework argue that young offenders in such serious cases demonstrate a sufficient understanding of their actions and should, therefore, face more stringent consequences. In contrast, opponents highlight the significant developmental and psychological distinctions between juveniles and adults, positing that exposing minors to adult legal repercussions may undermine their potential for rehabilitation. High-profile incidents have prompted lawmakers to reconsider how to effectively balance societal accountability with opportunities for reform in juvenile offenders.

Rehabilitation vs. Punishment: A Delicate Balance

The Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act emphasizes a rehabilitative approach, aiming to reform young offenders rather than focus on punishment. According to Section 18 of the JJ Act, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has the authority to issue non-punitive measures like community service, probation, counseling, and placement in rehabilitation centers. This strategy is based on the belief that young individuals are still developing and can greatly benefit from constructive interventions, potentially leading to lower rates of reoffending. However, in cases of serious offenses such as sexual assault, there is significant public pressure for punitive action, with many arguing that rehabilitation fails to adequately address the severity of the crime.

The debate between rehabilitation and punishment is often intensified by media coverage and societal views. Public opinion, particularly after sensational cases, can greatly sway discussions around policy, as the media tends to highlight the seriousness of offenses at the expense of recognizing the possibility of reform in juveniles. Although the JJ Act advocates for rehabilitation as the primary approach, there are increasing calls for revisions that would introduce tougher penalties for juveniles involved in serious crimes. Striking a balance between these public expectations and the commitment to juvenile reform presents a challenging policy dilemma.

Psychological and Sociological Influences

Grasping the psychological and sociological influences behind juvenile sexual offenses is crucial for crafting effective interventions and policies. The Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act acknowledges that juveniles often act under the sway of various environmental, psychological, or social pressures. Accordingly, Section 15 empowers the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to mandate psychological evaluations to gauge the mental and emotional well-being of juvenile offenders. These assessments yield vital insights into the juvenile’s actions, which can significantly impact decisions related to sentencing and rehabilitation.

Several factors can lead juveniles to commit sexual offenses, including exposure to violence, absence of positive role models, peer influence, and socio-economic hardships. Experts in psychology and criminology contend that these elements frequently affect juvenile behavior, making it imperative to understand them to tackle the root causes of juvenile crime. Such evaluations guide rehabilitative strategies that prioritize addressing the juvenile’s fundamental needs rather than focusing solely on punitive measures.

The significance of psychological assessments lies in their capacity to shape both sentencing and rehabilitation approaches. Accurate evaluations enable the JJB to customize interventions aimed at helping juveniles reform and lower the likelihood of re-offending. However, public sentiment often questions the leniency afforded based on these psychological assessments, particularly in cases involving sexual offenses, which creates a conflict between societal safety and the goal of rehabilitating juveniles.

Provisions within the JJ Act regarding juvenile justice in sexual offense cases highlight the complexities of reconciling accountability with the possibility of rehabilitation. The ongoing debates around the age of criminal responsibility, the balance between retribution and rehabilitation, and the significance of psychological and sociological factors underscore the challenges that lawmakers and the justice system encounter. By carefully interpreting Sections 15, 18, and 2(33), the Act aims to navigate the intricacies of juvenile justice, acknowledging that even those involved in serious offenses may still have the potential for change. As society and legal frameworks progress, so will the discussions surrounding these vital issues.

Exploring Case Studies and Landmark Judgments in India’s Juvenile Justice System

Understanding the landscape of India’s juvenile justice system, particularly in relation to sexual offenses committed by minors, requires a close examination of case studies and landmark judgments. These pivotal cases have not only shaped judicial perspectives but have also catalyzed legislative reforms and influenced societal attitudes. They expose the delicate balance between rehabilitation and accountability, illuminating the role of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act in navigating these complex issues.

Insightful Review of Significant Cases Involving Juveniles and Sexual Offenses

Prominent cases involving juveniles accused of sexual crimes have ignited public discourse and scrutiny surrounding the effectiveness of the JJ Act. A striking example is the 2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case[32], where one of the accused was a minor. The outrage that ensued led to widespread calls for harsher penalties for juveniles implicated in severe offenses, highlighting the challenges of the juvenile justice system in addressing egregious crimes and prompting significant legislative changes.

In reaction to incidents like this, the Juvenile Justice Act underwent amendments in 2015, allowing for juveniles aged 16-18 to be tried as adults for serious offenses. This legislative shift defined “heinous offenses” under Section 2(33), categorizing crimes that carry a minimum punishment of seven years and enabling adult trials in cases involving sexual offenses committed by juveniles. Furthermore, Section 15(1) empowers the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to evaluate the maturity and intent of juvenile offenders, determining their eligibility for adult trial proceedings. This pivotal change in legislation mirrored public demands for enhanced accountability in cases where juveniles are involved in serious criminal activities.

Overview of Recent Key Rulings Influencing the Juvenile Justice System in Sexual Offense Cases

In recent years, significant court rulings have shaped how the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act is interpreted and applied to juvenile sexual offenders.

Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020)[33]

The Supreme Court clarified that “heinous offenses” under the JJ Act are defined as those with a minimum punishment of seven years, excluding “serious offenses” (punishable by three to seven years). This interpretation of Section 2(33) ensures that only the most severe crimes can lead to juveniles aged 16-18 being tried as adults under Section 15.

Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P. (2020)[34]

This ruling emphasized the importance of psychological evaluations in determining a juvenile’s responsibility and maturity. According to the Supreme Court, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) must consider these factors when contemplating transferring a case to adult court, reinforcing the JJ Act’s focus on rehabilitation.

State of Maharashtra v. X (2022)[35]

In this case, the Bombay High Court approved a JJB’s decision to try a 17-year-old for sexual assault as an adult based on psychological assessments indicating sufficient maturity. This case highlighted the need for careful evaluation of juveniles involved in heinous offenses when deciding on adult trials.

State of Rajasthan v. M.A. (2023)[36]

The Supreme Court ruled that in cases involving a 16-year-old accused of sexual assault, the JJB must assess the juvenile’s psychological maturity and personal background. This decision reinforced the importance of a nuanced approach in determining whether a juvenile should face an adult trial, as mandated by Section 15(3).

State of Haryana v. R.K. (2024)[37]

In this ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld a JJB’s focus on rehabilitation for a juvenile involved in a serious crime, considering the offender’s abusive background. The Court emphasized that Section 18, which prioritizes rehabilitative measures, should guide decisions when rehabilitation presents a feasible path to reform. This case underscores the need for a compassionate approach, taking into account the juvenile’s history and psychological assessments.

Also read: Case Analysis: Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2020): Juvenile Justice Reforms

Impact of Juvenile Cases on Legislation and Public Perspective

Juvenile cases involving sexual offenses have significantly shaped legislative changes and influenced how the public views these issues. The 2015 amendment to the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act was a direct response to public outcry following several high-profile incidents, allowing juveniles aged 16-18 to be tried as adults for serious crimes. This change, in accordance with Section 15, allows the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. Concurrently, Section 18 reinforces the principle of rehabilitation, emphasizing opportunities for reformative justice rather than solely punitive responses.

Public opinion, often swayed by media portrayals of severe crimes involving juveniles, tends to favor stricter penalties for minors, exerting pressure on legislators to implement tougher laws, especially in cases of sexual offenses. However, advocates for child rights argue that an exclusively punitive stance could undermine the reformative goals of the JJ Act, which aims to provide young offenders with pathways for rehabilitation and successful reintegration into society.

Recent landmark rulings have prompted a more nuanced approach to evaluating juveniles, focusing on psychological and social assessments. Courts and JJBs are increasingly recognizing the importance of considering each case individually, taking into account factors such as family background, psychological condition, and maturity level. Decisions from cases like Shilpa Mittal have clarified the application of Sections 15 and 18, promoting a balanced perspective that acknowledges the seriousness of the crime while also considering the juvenile’s specific situation.

The examination of case studies and significant court rulings highlights the ongoing evolution of the JJ Act in addressing the complex issues surrounding juveniles involved in sexual offenses. By clarifying definitions under Sections 2(33) and 15, and reinforcing rehabilitative approaches in Section 18, the Act aims to strike a balance between delivering justice and fostering the potential for reform. Landmark cases serve as essential reference points for interpreting these laws, while public perception and media narratives continue to influence legislative developments. The juvenile justice system remains a dynamic field, dedicated to protecting society while offering young offenders the opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate.

Also read: Can Juveniles Be Tried as Adults for Heinous Crimes? Legal and Ethical Implications Explained

Examining Global Approaches to Juvenile Justice in Sexual Offenses

A comparative analysis of juvenile justice systems around the world reveals significant differences in how countries respond to juvenile sexual offenses, particularly in striking a balance between rehabilitation and accountability. Nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia each implement unique juvenile justice frameworks that tackle these sensitive issues. These global perspectives shed light on alternative methods—like restorative justice and victim-offender reconciliation—that could potentially enrich and improve juvenile justice practices in India.

United States[38]

In the U.S., juvenile justice policies regarding sexual offenses differ greatly across states, with an overarching focus on ensuring public safety while also recognizing the offender’s capacity for rehabilitation. Many states permit juveniles to be tried as adults for serious sexual crimes, often considering factors such as the offender’s age, previous criminal behavior, and the specifics of the offense. This contrasts with India’s Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, which restricts adult trials to those aged 16-18 involved in serious offenses (as outlined in Section 15). Additionally, a notable aspect of juvenile sexual offense cases in the U.S. is the obligatory registration of juvenile offenders on sex offender registries, a move that has sparked debate over its implications for rehabilitation and the lifelong stigma it can create.

While restorative justice practices are more commonly associated with non-violent offenses in the U.S., some jurisdictions have begun to incorporate these approaches in juvenile cases. These programs facilitate constructive dialogue between victims and offenders, promoting voluntary participation from both sides. Although India’s JJ Act does not currently encompass such restorative elements, its rehabilitative emphasis, particularly under Section 18, resonates with the principles of restorative justice, highlighting the belief in a juvenile’s potential for transformation rather than solely focusing on punitive measures.

United Kingdom[39]

The juvenile justice system in the UK places a strong focus on rehabilitation for young offenders, particularly those under the age of 18. The UK Juvenile Justice Act categorizes offenses by severity, generally reserving custody for serious crimes, such as aggravated sexual offenses. For 16- and 17-year-olds committing severe offenses, the law permits adult sentencing, yet the emphasis remains on rehabilitation. This approach mirrors India’s classification of “heinous” offenses in Section 2(33) of the JJ Act, where a structured assessment determines the seriousness of the crime, ensuring extended detention is reserved for the most severe cases.

Restorative justice practices are widely utilized in the UK, featuring initiatives like victim-offender mediation programs facilitated by Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)[40]. These programs encourage accountability and foster healing by allowing dialogue between the victim and the offender. Research indicates these practices can lower reoffending rates and provide closure for victims. While India’s juvenile justice framework does not explicitly incorporate such practices, adapting similar strategies could enhance the rehabilitative aims of the Indian system, helping juvenile offenders grasp the consequences of their actions.

Australia[41]

Australia’s juvenile justice system prioritizes rehabilitation, diversion, and restorative justice, especially in New South Wales and Victoria. For serious sexual offenses, Australian law allows cases to be transferred to adult court, particularly if the crime is considered especially heinous. This aligns with Section 15 of India’s JJ Act, where the Juvenile Justice Board determines if a juvenile aged 16 to 18 should be tried as an adult based on the crime’s severity.

Restorative justice practices are also prevalent in Australia, particularly for young offenders. Programs like Youth Justice Conferencing[42] provide a structured environment for discussions among the offender, victim, and community members, encouraging offenders to accept responsibility and recognize the harm their actions have caused. These initiatives resonate with Section 18 of India’s JJ Act, which emphasizes rehabilitating juvenile offenders, as both foster reintegration into society while addressing the victims’ needs.

Exploring Alternative Approaches in Juvenile Justice: Restorative Justice and Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs

Restorative justice, a model gaining traction in countries like the UK and Australia, focuses on healing by fostering dialogue and reconciliation between victims and offenders. This innovative approach could significantly enhance India’s juvenile justice framework, particularly in cases involving sexual offenses, by addressing the emotional and psychological needs of both the victim and the offender. Programs aimed at victim-offender reconciliation enable young offenders to grasp the impact of their actions, and studies suggest that these initiatives can effectively lower recidivism rates and support smoother reintegration into society.

Integrating restorative justice principles into India’s Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act could be beneficial, especially for minor or first-time offenders, allowing them a chance to take responsibility and make amends. The Act’s Section 18, which is centered on rehabilitation, could be strengthened by incorporating victim-offender reconciliation methods, aligning with global trends that prioritize restorative approaches over punitive responses.

Through a comparative examination of juvenile justice systems in the USA, UK, and Australia, we see a range of strategies for managing juvenile sexual offenses, from strict punitive measures to restorative practices. While India’s JJ Act already emphasizes rehabilitation and allows for adult trials in serious offenses (as outlined in Section 15), incorporating restorative justice could provide a valuable perspective. By exploring these alternative methods, India can refine its juvenile justice system to ensure a balance between accountability and reform, ultimately focusing on the holistic rehabilitation of young offenders.

Recommendations and Path Forward

To enhance the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act’s effectiveness in addressing sexual offenses, we must prioritize legal reforms, educational initiatives, and rehabilitation programs tailored to the distinct developmental needs of juveniles. The following suggestions aim to bridge existing gaps in the current system and foster a more compassionate and efficient juvenile justice approach.

Enhancing the Legal Framework

A key recommendation is to refine the JJ Act’s provisions to provide clearer guidance on handling sexual offense cases involving juveniles. While Section 15 allows for adult trials for juveniles aged 16-18 in severe offenses, there is an urgent need for explicit criteria on the application of such trials. By strengthening the criteria for evaluating a juvenile’s mental maturity, emotional stability, and comprehension of their actions, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) can make more equitable and knowledgeable decisions. Additional improvements may include: –

• Standardizing Psychological Evaluations: Implementing mandatory and thorough psychological assessments for all cases of serious crimes, as specified in Section 15(3), would promote uniformity in determining whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult.
• Improving Protections for Juvenile Victims: Revising the JJ Act to clearly define and enhance protections for juvenile victims, particularly in Sections 8 and 18, in alignment with the POCSO Act, would bolster support for juvenile survivors. This includes ensuring confidentiality and facilitating trauma-informed care to better assist those affected.

The Value of Awareness Programs for Prevention

To effectively prevent juveniles from engaging in sexual offenses, it is essential to implement early intervention strategies through awareness programs aimed at both young individuals and law enforcement officials. These initiatives can play a crucial role in reducing harmful behaviors and creating a supportive atmosphere for young victims. Key strategies include:

1. Educational Initiatives in Schools: Implementing programs within educational institutions that emphasize healthy relationships, the importance of consent, and the recognition of personal boundaries. These initiatives serve as a proactive measure, equipping children with lessons in respect and empathy, while helping them identify inappropriate actions.
2. Law Enforcement and Judicial Training: Conducting ongoing training for law enforcement and judicial staff about trauma-informed practices and adolescent psychology. This education will enable personnel to approach juvenile cases with greater sensitivity, thereby minimizing the risk of re-traumatization and ensuring a more child-friendly process, in line with the rehabilitative objectives outlined in Section 18.

Focus on Comprehensive Rehabilitation Programs

A fundamental element of reforming the juvenile justice system is the establishment of rehabilitation programs tailored to address the psychological and emotional needs of each young offender. While Section 18 of the JJ Act lays the groundwork for rehabilitation, there is potential to enhance these efforts by implementing holistic, personalized strategies. Recommendations include:

1. Trauma-Informed Therapy and Support Services: Creating specialized centers for trauma-informed therapy that cater to the mental health requirements of juvenile offenders, especially those involved in severe offenses. This approach can offer vital coping strategies, aid in recovery, and lower the chances of recidivism.
2. Skills Training and Vocational Education: Programs within Observation Homes and Special Homes (as described in Sections 47 and 48) should incorporate vocational training, life skills development, and educational assistance to ensure juveniles can successfully reintegrate into society.
3. Restorative Justice and Reconciliation Initiatives: Incorporating restorative justice principles into the JJ Act would provide a structured method for victim-offender interactions, allowing juvenile offenders to understand the ramifications of their actions while promoting accountability and empathy. Though not explicitly addressed in the current legislation, this approach can enhance the rehabilitative aims of Section 18.

The JJ Act establishes a foundation for addressing juvenile sexual offenses, yet adapting the legal framework, prioritizing education, and customizing rehabilitation programs to meet individual needs can enhance its effectiveness. By embracing restorative justice methodologies, improving psychological evaluation processes, and investing in preventive education, India’s juvenile justice system can achieve a balance between accountability and compassion, providing young offenders with substantial opportunities for reform and successful reintegration.

Conclusion

This article explored the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act’s significant role in managing sexual offenses involving juveniles, whether as victims or offenders. It emphasized the Act’s commitment to balancing accountability with rehabilitation. We highlighted essential protections for juvenile victims, such as trauma-informed care provided under the POCSO Act and assistance from Child Welfare Committees (CWCs). For juvenile offenders, we examined the classification of offenses into petty, serious, and heinous categories, focusing on Section 15, which permits the trial of juveniles aged 16-18 as adults for heinous crimes under certain conditions. This adaptability showcases the Act’s aim to prioritize public safety while also recognizing the developmental needs of young individuals.

Our discussion illustrated the tension between societal demands for harsher penalties for juvenile offenders and the JJ Act’s foundational principles of rehabilitation and reform, consistent with international juvenile justice practices. Recent landmark court rulings have influenced the interpretation and application of Sections 2(33), 15, and 18, promoting detailed, individual assessments by Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) that take into account the offender’s maturity and circumstances.

Looking ahead, it is crucial to enhance the JJ Act’s provisions to effectively tackle the changing landscape of juvenile justice. Recommendations for improvement include standardizing psychological evaluations, strengthening legal protections for juvenile victims, and incorporating restorative justice initiatives. Furthermore, awareness programs aimed at both juveniles and law enforcement can play a vital role in offense prevention by cultivating empathy and understanding.

In summary, a balanced and empathetic approach is essential for addressing juvenile justice in cases of sexual offenses. Ongoing discussions regarding the refinement of the JJ Act will ensure that India’s juvenile justice system evolves in response to societal demands, providing both protection for victims and meaningful reform opportunities for young offenders.

Bibliography

• Statutes and Acts:
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Sections 2(33), 2(45), 2(54), 8, 15, 15(1), 15(3), 18, 47, 48.

Referenced extensively throughout the document in the context of juvenile offenders, rehabilitation measures, and classification of offenses.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Mentioned as a legal safeguard for juvenile victims and emphasized in the context of trauma-informed care.

• Statutes
  1. Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW)

Referenced in the context of youth justice conferencing in New South Wales, emphasizing its role in providing alternative justice processes for young offenders.

• Case Laws:
• Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787.

Supreme Court clarified the definition of “heinous offenses” under the Juvenile Justice Act.

1329. Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 1329.

Addressed the importance of psychological evaluations for determining the maturity of juvenile offenders.

745. State of Maharashtra v. X, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 745.

Allowed the trial of a 17-year-old juvenile accused of sexual assault as an adult based on psychological assessments.

1547. State of Rajasthan v. M.A., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1547.

Highlighted the necessity of nuanced approaches in determining the transfer of juveniles to adult courts.

389. State of Haryana v. R.K., 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 389.

Reinforced the importance of prioritizing rehabilitative measures for juveniles with a history of abuse.

1. 2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case (Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 1)

Known as the 2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case, this judgment played a key role in amending the Juvenile Justice Act to allow certain juveniles to be tried as adults.

Mentioned for its pivotal influence on legislative changes to the Juvenile Justice Act, enabling juveniles aged 16–18 to be tried as adults for heinous crimes.

• International Comparisons:

Juvenile justice frameworks of the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia are implicitly cited for their approaches to juvenile sexual offenses, restorative justice, and the trial of juveniles as adults.

• International Frameworks and Models

1. 1. Restorative Justice Practices

Discussed regarding their application in the UK and Australia, specifically victim-offender reconciliation and youth justice conferencing.

1. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 40(3)

Referenced indirectly in discussing the rights-based approach to juvenile justice.

• Recommendations:

Incorporation of Restorative Justice Models from jurisdictions like the UK and Australia, discussed in the context of victim-offender reconciliation programs.

Global practices concerning trauma-informed care, psychological assessments, and vocational training for juveniles.

• Institutions and Programs

1. 1. Child Welfare Committees (CWCs)

Extensively discussed for their role in providing safe housing, counseling, and other rehabilitative services for juvenile victims.

1. Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in the UK

Referenced for their restorative justice initiatives and victim-offender mediation programs.

1. Youth Justice Conferencing in NSW, Australia

Highlighted as a rehabilitative alternative for young offenders to foster accountability and repair harm.

8. Other References:
9. Concepts like rehabilitation vs. punishment, public perception of juvenile justice, and psychological and sociological influences on juvenile behavior.

[1] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 available at:  https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2148/1/a2016-2.pdf

[2] Ibid.

[3] Section 2(45) of JJ Act defines petty offences as follows: “petty offences” includes the offences for which the maximum punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment up to three years;

[4] Section 2(54) of JJ Act defines serious offences as follows: “serious offences” includes the offences for which the punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force, is imprisonment between three to seven years;

[5] Section 2(33) of JJ Act defines heinous offences as follows: “heinous offences” includes the offences for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more;

[6] Section 15.   Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.

(1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18:

Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence.

(2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):

Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of section 101:

Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section 14.

[7] Section 2(10) provides the definition of JJB as “Board” means a Juvenile Justice Board constituted under section 4;

Section 4.   Juvenile Justice Board.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the State Government shall, constitute for every district, one or more Juvenile Justice Boards for exercising the powers and discharging its functions relating to children in conflict with law under this Act.

(2) A Board shall consist of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of First Class not being Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as Principal Magistrate) with at least three years experience and two social workers selected in such manner as may be prescribed, of whom at least one shall be a woman, forming a Bench and every such Bench shall have the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) on a Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, a Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

(3) No social worker shall be appointed as a member of the Board unless such person has been actively involved in health, education, or welfare activities pertaining to children for atleast seven years or a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology, psychiatry, sociology or law.

(4) No person shall be eligible for selection as a member of the Board, if he–

• has any past record of violation of human rights or child rights;
• has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, and such conviction has not been reversed or has not been granted full pardon in respect of such offence;
• has been removed or dismissed from service of the Central Government or a State Government or an undertaking or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government;
• has ever indulged in child abuse or employment of child labour or any other violation of human rights or immoral act.

(5) The State Government shall ensure that induction training and sensitisation of all members including Principal Magistrate of the Board on care, protection, rehabilitation, legal provisions and justice for children, as may be prescribed, is provided within a period of sixty days from the date of appointment.

(6) The term of office of the members of the Board and the manner in which such member may resign shall be such, as may be prescribed.

(7) The appointment of any member of the Board, except the Principal Magistrate, may be terminated after holding an inquiry by the State Government, if he–

• has been found guilty of misuse of power vested under this Act; or
• fails to attend the proceedings of the Board consecutively for three months without any valid reason; or
• fails to attend ¹[minimum] three-fourths of the sittings in a year; or
• becomes ineligible under sub-section (4)during his term as a member.

[8] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, supra note 1.

[9] POCSO Act available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2079/1/AA2012-32.pdf

[10] Section 27.   Child Welfare Committee.

(1) The State Government shall by notification in the Official Gazette constitute for every district, one or more Child Welfare Committees for exercising the powers and to discharge the duties conferred on such Committees in relation to children in need of care and protection under this Act and ensure that induction training and sensitisation of all members of the committee is provided within two months from the date of notification.

(2) The Committee shall consist of a Chairperson, and four other members as the State Government may think fit to appoint, of whom at least one shall be a woman and another, an expert on the matters concerning children.

(3) The District Child Protection Unit shall provide a Secretary and other staff that may be required for secretarial support to the Committee for its effective functioning.

[(4) No person shall be appointed as a member of the Committee unless he has a degree in child psychology or psychiatry or law or social work or sociology or human health or education or human development or special education for differently abled children and has been actively involved in health, education or welfare activities pertaining to children for seven years or is a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or psychiatry or law or social work or sociology or human health or education or human development or special education for differently abled children.

(4A) No person shall be eligible for selection as a member of the Committee, if he–

• has any past record of violation of human rights or child rights,
• has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, and such conviction has not been reversed or has not been granted full pardon in respect of such offence,
• has been removed or dismissed from service of the Government of India or State Government or an undertaking or corporation owned or controlled by the Government of India or State Government,
• has ever indulged in child abuse or employment of child labour or immoral act or any other violation of human rights or immoral acts, or
• is part of management of a child care institution in a District.]

(5) No person shall be appointed as a member unless he possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed.

(6) No person shall be appointed for a period of more than three years as a member of the Committee.

(7) The appointment of any member of the Committee shall be terminated by the State Government after making an inquiry, if—

• he has been found guilty of misuse of power vested on him under this Act;
• he has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and such conviction has not been reversed or he has not been granted full pardon in respect of such offence;
• he fails to attend the proceedings of the Committee consecutively for three months without any valid reason or he fails to attend ²[minimum] three-fourths of the sittings in a year.

[(8) The Committee shall submit a report to the District Magistrate in such form as may be prescribed and the District Magistrate shall conduct a quarterly review of the functioning of the Committee.]

(9) The Committee shall function as a Bench and shall have the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) on a Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, a Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

[(10) The District Magistrate shall be the grievance redressal authority to entertain any grievance arising out of the functioning of the Committee and the affected child or anyone connected with the child, as the case may be, may file a complaint before the District Magistrate who shall take cognizance of the action of the Committee and, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass appropriate order.]

[11] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, supra note 1.

[12] POCSO Act, supra note 9.

[13] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, supra note 1.

[14] POCSO Act, supra note 9.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Section 27.   Child Welfare Committee, supra note 10

[17] Dr. Nilima Mehta, “Care and Protection of Children under the Juvenile Justice System,” Childline India Foundation, available at https://www.childlineindia.org/pdf/CP-JJ-CNCP.pdf

[18] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, supra note 1.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Section 8.   Powers, functions and responsibilities of the Board.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force but save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Board constituted for any district shall have the power to deal exclusively with all the proceedings under this Act, relating to children in conflict with law, in the area of jurisdiction of such Board.

(2) The powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Children’s Court, when the proceedings come before them under section 19 or in appeal, revision or otherwise.

(3) The functions and responsibilities of the Board shall include–

• ensuring the informed participation of the child and the parent or guardian, in every step of the process;
• ensuring that the child’s rights are protected throughout the process of apprehending the child, inquiry, aftercare and rehabilitation;
• ensuring availability of legal aid for the child through the legal services institutions;
• wherever necessary the Board shall provide an interpreter or translator, having such qualifications, experience, and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, to the child if he fails to understand the language used in the proceedings;
• directing the Probation Officer, or in case a Probation Officer is not available to the Child Welfare Officer or a social worker, to undertake a social investigation into the case and submit a social investigation report within a period of fifteen days from the date of first production before the Board to ascertain the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed;
• adjudicate and dispose of cases of children in conflict with law in accordance with the process of inquiry specified in section 14;
• transferring to the Committee, matters concerning the child alleged to be in conflict with law, stated to be in need of care and protection at any stage, thereby recognising that a child in conflict with law can also be a child in need of care simultaneously and there is a need for the Committee and the Board to be both involved;
• disposing of the matter and passing a final order that includes an individual care plan for the child’s rehabilitation, including follow up by the Probation Officer or the District Child Protection Unit or a member of a non-governmental organisation, as may be required;
• conducting inquiry for declaring fit persons regarding care of children in conflict with law;
• conducting at least one inspection visit every month of residential facilities for children in conflict with law and recommend action for improvement in quality of services to the District Child Protection Unit and the State Government;
• order the police for registration of first information report for offences committed against any child in conflict with law, under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, on a complaint made in this regard;
• order the police for registration of first information report for offences committed against any child in need of care and protection, under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, on a written complaint by a Committee in this regard;
• conducting regular inspection of jails meant for adults to check if any child is lodged in such jails and take immediate measures for transfer of ¹[that child to an observation home or place of safety, as the case may be]; and
• any other function as may be prescribed.

[21] JJB, supra note 7.

[22] Section 15, supra note 6.

[23] Section 2(45), supra note 3.

[24] Section 18.   Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.

(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence, ¹[or a child above the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence and the Board has, after preliminary assessment under Section 15, disposed of the matter] then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,–

• allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following appropriate inquiry and counselling to such child and to his parents or the guardian;
• direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities;
• order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organisation or institution, or a specified person, persons or group of persons identified by the Board;
• order the child or parents or the guardian of the child to pay fine:
• Provided that, in case the child is working, it may be ensured that the provisions of any labour law for the time being in force are not violated;
• direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and childs well-being for any period not exceeding three years;
• direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behaviour and childs well-being for any period not exceeding three years;
• direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home:

Provided that if the conduct and behaviour of the child has been such that, it would not be in the childs interest, or in the interest of other children housed in a special home, the Board may send such child to the place of safety.

(2) If an order is passed under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1), the Board may, in addition pass orders to

• attend school; or
• attend a vocational training centre; or
• attend a therapeutic centre; or
• prohibit the child from visiting, frequenting or appearing at a specified place; or (v) undergo a de-addiction programme.

(3) Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.

[25] Section 2(54), supra note 4.

[26] Section 2(33). Supra note 5.

[27] Section 18, supra note 24.

[28] Section 9.   Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act

(3) If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.

[29] Section 18, supra note 24.

[30] Section 47.   Observation homes

(1) The State Government shall establish and maintain in every district or a group of districts, either by itself, or through voluntary or non-governmental organisations, observation homes, which shall be registered under section 41 of this Act, for temporary reception, care and rehabilitation of any child alleged to be in conflict with law, during the pendency of any inquiry under this Act.

(2) Where the State Government is of the opinion that any registered institution other than a home established or maintained under sub-section (1), is fit for the temporary reception of such child alleged to be in conflict with law during the pendency of any inquiry under this Act, it may register such institution as an observation home for the purposes of this Act.

(3) The State Government may, by rules made under this Act, provide for the management and monitoring of observation homes, including the standards and various types of services to be provided by them for rehabilitation and social integration of a child alleged to be in conflict with law and the circumstances under which, and the manner in which, the registration of an observation home may be granted or withdrawn.

(4) Every child alleged to be in conflict with law who is not placed under the charge of parent or guardian and is sent to an observation home shall be segregated according to the child’s age and gender, after giving due consideration to physical and mental status of the child and degree of the offence committed.

[31] Section 48.   Special homes.

(1) The State Government may establish and maintain either by itself or through voluntary or non-governmental organisations, special homes, which shall be registered as such, in the manner as may be prescribed, in every district or a group of districts, as may be required for rehabilitation of those children in conflict with law who are found to have committed an offence and who are placed there by an order of the Juvenile Justice Board made under section 18.

(2) The State Government may, by rules, provide for the management and monitoring of special homes, including the standards and various types of services to be provided by them which are necessary for social re-integration of a child, and the circumstances under which, and the manner in which, the registration of a special home may be granted or withdrawn.

(3) The rules made under sub-section (2) may also provide for the segregation and separation of children found to be in conflict with law on the basis of age, gender, the nature of offence committed by them and the childs mental and physical status.

[32] 2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case (Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 1.).

[33] Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787.

[34] Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 1329.

[35] State of Maharashtra v. X, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 745.

[36] State of Rajasthan v. M.A., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1547.

[37] State of Haryana v. R.K., 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 389.

[38] Roger Przybylski and Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, “Unique Considerations Regarding Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses,” Chapter 1, Juvenile Section, Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI), SMART Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, available at https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-1-unique-considerations-regarding-juveniles-who-commit-sexual-offenses

[39] JUSTICE, “Youth Justice,” available at https://justice.org.uk/youth-justice/

[40] Restorative Justice Council, “Restorative Justice in Youth Offending Teams: Information Pack,” available at https://restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/news/files/dpn8_yot_infopack.pdf

[41] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, “Youth Justice Overview,” available at https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-data/health-welfare-services/youth-justice/overview

[42] NSW Government, “Youth Justice Conferencing,” available at https://www.nsw.gov.au/legal-and-justice/youth-justice/conferencing