This article has been written by Shubhashish Dwivedi.
***This article has been selected for LegalOnus Law Journal (LLJ) Volume 1 Issue 9 2025
Abstract
Restorative justice (RJ) is a transformative and holistic approach to justice that prioritizes healing, accountability, and community involvement over retributive punishment. This concept is particularly significant in juvenile justice systems where the focus must shift from punitive measures to rehabilitative and reformative processes. Unlike traditional criminal justice systems that emphasize penalizing offenders, RJ aims to repair the harm caused by criminal behavior by facilitating inclusive dialogue and mutual understanding among victims, offenders, and the community. In India, where child offenders often come from marginalized and vulnerable backgrounds, RJ holds tremendous potential to promote reformation and social reintegration.
This research paper investigates the efficacy and multifaceted challenges of integrating restorative justice into India’s juvenile justice system. It critically analyzes the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in the light of restorative principles and international human rights standards such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Through an examination of global best practices, case studies, pilot programs, and empirical evidence from Indian NGOs and juvenile justice boards, this paper evaluates the socio-legal feasibility and practical implementation of RJ mechanisms in India.
The findings suggest that RJ interventions can significantly enhance juvenile rehabilitation, reduce recidivism rates, and foster empathetic resolution processes. Nonetheless, the implementation of RJ faces several obstacles including the lack of statutory mandates, insufficient training for stakeholders, limited awareness among judicial authorities, and inadequate institutional infrastructure. This paper concludes by recommending strategic policy interventions, capacity-building programs, and legal reforms to embed restorative justice principles more formally within India’s juvenile justice framework.
Introduction
The administration of juvenile justice presents unique challenges that necessitate a departure from traditional punitive paradigms toward approaches that recognize the cognitive, emotional, and social development differences between juveniles and adults. Juveniles, owing to their impressionability and evolving sense of moral judgment, require justice systems that prioritize their growth, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society. In this context, restorative justice (RJ) emerges as a progressive and humane alternative that aligns with the best interests of the child and upholds their dignity and worth.
Globally, juvenile justice systems have increasingly embraced restorative models that emphasize dialogue, empathy, accountability, and community participation. Countries such as New Zealand, Canada, Norway, and Finland have demonstrated that restorative practices can successfully reduce juvenile crime, foster reconciliation, and facilitate positive behavioral changes. These models also emphasize the importance of involving the victim in the justice process, which not only promotes closure but also ensures that justice is perceived to be done.
Restorative justice differs from retributive justice in its fundamental orientation toward repairing harm rather than punishing offenders. RJ assumes that crime is not just a violation of legal codes, but also a disruption of relationships between individuals and communities. Thus, it prioritizes inclusive processes that enable all affected parties to express their needs, emotions, and perspectives. Restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and circle sentencing aim to create shared understanding, foster accountability, and promote meaningful restitution.
India, which houses more than 472 million children, is grappling with growing concerns related to juvenile delinquency, especially in urban and semi-urban settings. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the number of juveniles apprehended for various offenses has seen a steady rise, necessitating a re-examination of existing legal and rehabilitative frameworks. While the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, introduces a range of child-friendly procedures and rehabilitation-centric measures, the framework for restorative justice remains underdeveloped and poorly integrated.
Furthermore, the rising involvement of juveniles in serious crimes such as sexual assault, theft, drug abuse, and cybercrimes presents a moral and legal conundrum. The traditional approach of detention and incarceration fails to address the root causes of delinquency, such as poverty, neglect, trauma, or peer pressure. RJ, by contrast, offers a non-adversarial alternative that focuses on social healing, individual transformation, and long-term safety.
This paper endeavors to explore the conceptual underpinnings of restorative justice, evaluate its relevance and applicability within the Indian juvenile justice system, and provide a critical analysis of its current implementation. By drawing from international practices, empirical studies, and pilot programs within India, it aims to highlight the potential benefits of RJ and outline a roadmap for its structured integration. It also reflects on the systemic, cultural, and legal challenges that must be overcome to create a restorative juvenile justice ecosystem in India that is both child-centric and justice-oriented.
In addition to theoretical discussion, this paper incorporates qualitative insights from NGOs, field practitioners, and stakeholders working in the domain of child rights and juvenile justice. By contextualizing RJ within India’s diverse social landscape is marked by caste dynamics, socio-economic disparities, and cultural pluralism, it seeks to offer a grounded and pragmatic vision for reform. The overarching goal is to contribute toward building a justice system where children are not merely punished for their mistakes, but empowered to acknowledge responsibility, make amends, and rebuild their lives with dignity and hope.
Conceptual Framework of Restorative Justice
Restorative justice (RJ) represents a transformative paradigm shift in the understanding and administration of justice. At its core, RJ centers on the harm caused by criminal acts rather than the violation of law per se, viewing crime as a breakdown in relationships and community trust. Unlike retributive justice, which emphasizes punishment, RJ seeks to address the underlying causes of offending behavior and promote healing for victims, offenders, and communities alike.
The foundational pillars of restorative justice include accountability, reparation, participation, and reintegration:
- Accountability: This entails the offender acknowledging responsibility for their actions, recognizing the harm caused, and taking active steps toward repair. It requires a shift from passive acceptance of punishment to active engagement with the consequences of one’s behavior.
- Reparation: Reparation involves tangible or symbolic efforts by the offender to amend the harm done. This could range from a sincere apology to restitution of stolen property, or community service that benefits the victim or society.
- Participation: RJ is characterized by inclusive processes where victims, offenders, and community representatives collaboratively decide how justice can be achieved. This participatory element empowers victims by giving them a voice and allows offenders to be heard without fear of dehumanization.
- Reintegration: Reintegration focuses on restoring the social ties that were damaged due to the offense. It promotes the reinclusion of offenders into the community as responsible citizens, rather than ostracizing them through punitive incarceration.
In the context of juvenile justice, RJ acquires a unique developmental and psychological significance. Adolescents are in a critical stage of emotional and cognitive growth. Traditional adversarial systems that criminalize young offenders may further entrench feelings of alienation, shame, and defiance. Restorative approaches, in contrast, help youth understand the consequences of their actions, cultivate empathy, and adopt pro-social behaviors.
Common RJ practices include:
- Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM): This involves a structured meeting between the victim and the juvenile offender, mediated by a trained facilitator. The session provides a safe space for victims to share how the offense impacted them and for offenders to express remorse and offer amends.
- Family Group Conferencing (FGC): FGC brings together the child offender, their family, the victim, and community members to discuss the incident and collectively decide on an action plan. This model emphasizes familial and community accountability and support.
- Peacemaking Circles: Inspired by indigenous practices, these circles involve dialogue between all stakeholders in a non-hierarchical setting. Participants are guided through storytelling, reflection, and consensus-building, promoting healing and mutual understanding.
- Community Reparative Boards: These are panels comprising local citizens who meet with the offender (and sometimes the victim) to recommend community-oriented reparative measures tailored to the case.
From a rights-based perspective, restorative justice is strongly endorsed by international human rights instruments. Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) urges states to promote measures that foster the child’s sense of dignity, reinforce respect for the rights of others, and favor reintegration into society.[1]The Beijing Rules and the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines) also advocate for non-custodial, restorative alternatives wherever possible.[2]
Furthermore, RJ aligns with the Indian constitutional ethos of justice, dignity, and child welfare as enshrined in Articles 15(3), 21, 39(e), and 45. It offers an avenue for actualizing the objectives of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which emphasizes rehabilitation, social reintegration, and child-friendly procedures.
Ultimately, restorative justice in juvenile law is not merely a procedural alternative it represents a philosophical shift in how society conceptualizes justice for children. It calls for compassion, inclusivity, and a collective commitment to healing rather than punishment, thereby fostering a justice system that is more humane, equitable, and effective.
Restorative Justice within the Indian Juvenile Justice Framework
India’s approach to juvenile justice has evolved significantly over the decades, particularly with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This legislation embodies a shift towards a more reformative and rehabilitative system, departing from purely punitive strategies. However, while the law provides various mechanisms for rehabilitation, counseling, and reintegration, explicit provisions or structured frameworks for implementing restorative justice practices remain largely absent.
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 emphasizes the principle of the best interests of the child and seeks to ensure care, protection, development, and social reintegration of children in conflict with the law. It introduces several progressive measures such as individualized care plans, counseling services, and after-care programs. However, these measures often operate within a formal justice framework and do not necessarily embrace the participatory, reconciliatory ethos of restorative justice.
At present, restorative justice in India is being promoted more through informal practices and pilot initiatives rather than statutory mandates. Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), child rights groups, and juvenile justice boards have initiated restorative interventions, such as victim-offender dialogues and community conferencing, particularly in states like Maharashtra, Delhi, and Tamil Nadu. These efforts demonstrate the practical viability of RJ, even in the absence of formal legal recognition.
One of the major challenges is the lack of awareness and training among key stakeholders, including police personnel, juvenile justice board members, social workers, and probation officers. Many of these actors operate within a traditional punitive mindset and are unfamiliar with RJ principles and practices. There is also a shortage of trained facilitators who can conduct restorative sessions in a culturally sensitive and trauma-informed manner.
Moreover, the Indian legal system has yet to establish guidelines for incorporating restorative justice into judicial procedures involving juveniles. Questions related to admissibility, consent, confidentiality, and enforcement of restorative outcomes remain unaddressed. This legal ambiguity can create hesitation among judges and child welfare committees when considering restorative resolutions.
Despite these limitations, there are promising examples. For instance, the Juvenile Justice Board in Pune has facilitated family group conferences in cases involving non-serious offenses, which have led to community-based reparative agreements. In another instance, a restorative circle conducted by an NGO in Delhi helped a teenage offender understand the impact of his theft on an elderly victim, leading to an apology, restitution, and the withdrawal of the complaint.[3]
To move forward, it is crucial to institutionalize restorative justice within the juvenile justice system through statutory amendments, capacity building, and collaborative frameworks involving courts, community leaders, civil society organizations, and mental health professionals. Embedding RJ within the procedural and philosophical fabric of juvenile justice in India would not only align the system with international best practices but also transform the lives of countless young offenders by offering them a path to redemption and reintegration.
Case Studies and Pilot Programs in India
Despite the absence of a formalized legislative framework for restorative justice (RJ) in juvenile matters, several grassroots initiatives and pilot programs across India have demonstrated its potential in real-life contexts. These initiatives have emerged largely through the proactive engagement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), child rights activists, academic institutions, and progressive Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) that recognize the rehabilitative rather than punitive needs of juvenile offenders. By adapting restorative practices to local socio-cultural contexts, these programs provide empirical validation of RJ’s transformative impact on young offenders, victims, and the larger community.
Delhi: Restorative Dialogue by Counsel to Secure Justice (CSJ)
Counsel to Secure Justice (CSJ), a Delhi-based NGO committed to child protection and juvenile reform, has been a pioneer in piloting restorative justice programs in juvenile settings. In collaboration with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority and juvenile homes, CSJ implemented structured restorative dialogues between victims and child offenders. These cases typically involved non-violent offenses such as petty theft, vandalism, and minor physical altercations.
The model employed by CSJ included multiple stages: initial screening of cases for suitability, preparatory sessions with both the victim and offender, followed by a facilitated dialogue session. During these meetings, the juvenile offenders had an opportunity to express remorse and take responsibility for their actions, while victims could narrate their experiences and seek reparative actions such as apologies, community work, or restitution.[4]
Evaluation reports from CSJ programs have been highly promising. Many victims reported a sense of closure and emotional relief, while juveniles often displayed reduced aggression, greater empathy, and increased willingness to reform. CSJ’s experience underscores that with proper facilitation, even conflict-ridden contexts can benefit from restorative interventions.
Maharashtra: Family Group Conferencing in Pune
In Pune, the Juvenile Justice Board undertook an innovative approach by introducing Family Group Conferencing (FGC), a restorative practice that engages the offender’s extended family along with the victim and community members in a mediated dialogue. Supported by trained social workers and probation officers, these sessions offered a structured yet empathetic space to understand the roots of juvenile behavior.
One notable case involved a teenager accused of vandalizing public property. Instead of pursuing punitive proceedings, the JJB arranged an FGC session where the young offender, accompanied by his parents and elder sibling, met with the victim—a local shopkeeper. Through honest dialogue, the offender admitted guilt and agreed to repair the damage, engage in community service, and write a formal apology. The shopkeeper, moved by the sincerity and family support, withdrew the complaint.
This case, among others, illustrates how family inclusion strengthens accountability and improves the reintegration prospects for juveniles. It also highlights the importance of culturally sensitive mechanisms in India’s collectivist society, where family honor and support play a vital role in child development.
Tamil Nadu: Child Participation and Peer Mediation
Tamil Nadu has demonstrated remarkable foresight in incorporating RJ practices at the institutional level, especially within observation homes under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS). In several districts, peer mediation circles have been introduced where juveniles are encouraged to resolve interpersonal disputes among themselves with the assistance of trained facilitators.
These peer-led forums foster a sense of autonomy and collective responsibility among children in conflict with the law. The practice promotes key social skills such as empathy, negotiation, and emotional regulation—skills often underdeveloped in children from traumatic or unstable backgrounds. Facilitators report a marked decline in intra-home violence, fewer repeat offenses, and enhanced cooperation between juveniles and care staff.
Such models reinforce the idea that juveniles, if provided the right tools and support, are capable of self-regulation and moral reasoning. This localized and scalable intervention also reduces the burden on formal adjudicatory processes, thereby improving the overall efficiency of the juvenile justice system.
Kerala: Collaborative Justice Circles
In Kerala, the Justice Circles Project—launched with support from leading universities and law schools—introduced an academic-community collaboration in the implementation of restorative justice sessions. These circles involved a wide array of stakeholders including juvenile offenders, victims, law students, psychologists, and social workers.
The structure of these circles was inspired by indigenous justice practices and focused on storytelling, active listening, and empathy-building exercises. One such circle involved a group of juveniles who had committed minor thefts, and their victims, who were local shopkeepers. The sessions allowed offenders to explain the socio-economic pressures leading to their actions, while victims expressed the emotional and material consequences of the crimes.
The outcomes were encouraging: participants reported enhanced understanding, reduction in prejudice, and readiness to forgive. Offenders were assigned tailored rehabilitation plans, including vocational training and community service. Academic institutions also used these interactions as teaching tools, bridging theoretical learning with ground-level realities.
Impact and Learnings
These case studies collectively show that restorative justice can be meaningfully operationalized in diverse Indian contexts. They reveal that when adapted to local socio-cultural dynamics and facilitated with sensitivity, RJ can significantly transform the juvenile justice experience. These initiatives demonstrate that:
- RJ is not limited to affluent or resource-rich settings—it can be successful even in constrained environments.
- Community participation and institutional support are critical for sustainability.
- Structured and sensitively managed restorative dialogues can reduce recidivism, increase victim satisfaction, and promote long-term behavioral change.
Most importantly, these pilots serve as foundational blueprints for future legislative and policy efforts. They affirm that restorative justice is not merely an aspirational ideal but a practical alternative capable of humanizing juvenile justice in India.
Challenges in Mainstreaming Restorative Justice in India
While pilot programs and anecdotal successes offer hope, the widespread implementation of restorative justice (RJ) within the Indian juvenile justice framework faces numerous legal, institutional, cultural, and practical challenges. Addressing these systemic barriers is essential to realizing the full potential of RJ in transforming the juvenile justice landscape.
Absence of Statutory Framework
The foremost challenge is the absence of a formal statutory framework integrating RJ into juvenile justice proceedings. Although the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 emphasizes child-friendly procedures and rehabilitation, it does not explicitly recognize or provide procedural guidelines for RJ practices such as victim-offender mediation, conferencing, or restitution agreements. This legislative vacuum leads to inconsistencies across jurisdictions, as individual Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and child welfare authorities must rely on discretion or external partnerships with NGOs to implement RJ models. Without a codified mechanism, these initiatives lack uniformity, legal enforceability, and institutional legitimacy.
Limited Awareness and Training
Another significant hurdle is the limited understanding and awareness of restorative justice principles among key stakeholders in the juvenile justice ecosystem. These stakeholders include police officers, probation officers, magistrates, child welfare committee members, and even legal professionals. Many still operate within a predominantly retributive mindset that prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation. The absence of institutional training programs or curriculum modules on RJ in judicial academies and law schools further exacerbates this problem. Where RJ practices are attempted without adequate training, they risk being poorly implemented—possibly retraumatizing victims or producing outcomes that do not align with restorative values.
Resistance from Victims and Families
Restorative justice processes depend on voluntary, informed, and consensual participation from all parties involved. However, in many Indian contexts, victims and their families—particularly in cases of grievous offenses—may be reluctant to engage. Cultural stigmas surrounding crimes like sexual violence or domestic abuse, coupled with a mistrust of offenders’ sincerity, often deter victims from participating. In other situations, victims may view restorative justice as a lenient substitute for traditional punitive justice and feel that it trivializes their suffering. Furthermore, families of juvenile offenders may also resist RJ due to fear of social ostracization or skepticism about the process’s effectiveness.
Resource and Infrastructure Constraints
The successful execution of restorative justice practices requires a host of resources: trained facilitators, neutral meeting spaces, follow-up services, mental health support, and robust documentation protocols. Unfortunately, many observation homes and JJBs in India operate with limited personnel, inadequate funding, and outdated infrastructure. These limitations pose substantial barriers to creating safe, supportive environments necessary for RJ dialogues. In rural or underserved regions, the absence of logistical and technological infrastructure further hinders the scalability of restorative programs.
Legal Ambiguity and Institutional Inertia
There exists considerable legal ambiguity around the procedural and evidentiary aspects of restorative justice in India. Questions regarding confidentiality, admissibility of RJ proceedings in formal courts, the enforceability of mediated agreements, and the role of legal representation during RJ processes remain unresolved. Moreover, institutional inertia—stemming from the judiciary’s deep-rooted reliance on adversarial mechanisms—leads to reluctance in embracing RJ as a credible alternative. Judges and prosecutors may be hesitant to refer cases to RJ settings due to fear of being perceived as undermining judicial authority or failing to uphold legal rigour.
Inconsistent Implementation and Monitoring
The implementation of RJ programs in India remains fragmented and heavily dependent on localized initiatives, particularly those championed by individual NGOs or progressive judicial officers. In the absence of centralized policy direction, quality assurance mechanisms, and impact monitoring systems, these initiatives suffer from lack of sustainability and scalability. Without a comprehensive evaluation framework, it is difficult to gauge the long-term effectiveness of RJ interventions in reducing recidivism or enhancing victim satisfaction.
In summary, these multifaceted challenges highlight the need for an integrated and systemic approach to mainstreaming restorative justice in juvenile law. Legislative reforms, capacity building, community sensitization, and infrastructural development must be pursued in tandem to institutionalize RJ as a viable and credible pillar of juvenile justice in India.
Judicial Perspectives and Emerging Jurisprudence
While India’s judiciary has not yet adopted restorative justice as a formal jurisprudential doctrine in juvenile matters, there has been a gradual but notable shift in judicial reasoning towards reformative and rehabilitative approaches. This shift aligns with the constitutional mandate under Articles 15(3), 39(e) and (f), and 45, which emphasize the protection and development of children.
In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2014), the Supreme Court unequivocally reaffirmed the principle that the objective of juvenile justice should be the reformation and reintegration of the child into society, not punishment. The Court emphasized that juveniles must be treated differently from adults, even in heinous crimes, and underscored the primacy of rehabilitation-focused mechanisms. Although the case did not refer explicitly to restorative justice, the Court’s language and rationale resonate strongly with RJ values—particularly the emphasis on dignity, empathy, and second chances.[5]
High Courts too have contributed to this evolving jurisprudence. For instance, in Court on Its Own Motion v. Department of Women and Child Development (2015), the Delhi High Court addressed systemic flaws in the treatment of juveniles and called for non-adversarial, child-sensitive procedures in juvenile hearings. The Court stressed the need for alternatives to traditional punitive models and advocated for the integration of counseling, family participation, and psychological support into juvenile justice mechanisms.
In Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986), a landmark PIL that paved the way for several child protection reforms, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of individualized care, legal aid, and psychological rehabilitation for children in conflict with the law. Though not termed as RJ at the time, many of the reliefs granted in this case form the ethical and procedural basis for restorative engagements today.
Moreover, juvenile courts in some states have informally experimented with mediation, community conferencing, and victim-offender dialogues—often under the aegis of NGOs. While these initiatives have not yet crystallized into binding precedents, they indicate a growing judicial openness to alternative dispute resolution models in juvenile contexts.
The absence of a statutory RJ framework means that these judicial perspectives remain piecemeal and discretionary. To ensure uniformity and legal validity, it is essential for lawmakers to recognize RJ formally through amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act or through supplementary legislation. Such a step would empower courts to refer cases to RJ processes with clarity, procedural protection, and institutional backing.
In conclusion, the Indian judiciary has laid down a progressive interpretive foundation that favors restorative and reformative ideals. The next crucial step lies in transforming these moral and philosophical affirmations into tangible legal instruments that can guide the application of restorative justice across all levels of the juvenile justice system.
Policy Recommendations and the Way Forward
To meaningfully institutionalize restorative justice in India’s juvenile justice framework, a multidimensional strategy is essential. This includes legislative action, institutional reforms, capacity building, and public engagement.
Legislative Reforms
- Amend the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to formally recognize restorative justice principles and practices.
- Provide detailed procedural guidelines on conducting restorative conferences, victim-offender mediation, and community circles within the context of juvenile justice.
- Ensure safeguards for voluntary participation, confidentiality, and non-coercion.[6]
Capacity Building and Training
- Develop certified training programs for judges, police officers, social workers, and child welfare officials on restorative justice methodologies.
- Incorporate RJ training modules into the curriculum of law schools, judicial academies, and child rights institutions.
Infrastructure and Funding Support
- Allocate dedicated resources for setting up mediation centers and restorative spaces within juvenile homes and courts.
- Partner with NGOs and academic institutions to facilitate restorative programs and measure their outcomes.
Monitoring and Evaluation
- Create a national registry of restorative justice interventions in juvenile cases to track impact, identify best practices, and promote transparency.
- Establish a central coordinating body under the Ministry of Women and Child Development to standardize and monitor RJ practices across states.[7]
Public Awareness and Community Engagement
- Launch campaigns to sensitize the public about the goals and benefits of restorative justice.
- Involve communities and victim support networks in the RJ process to ensure broader acceptance and meaningful participation.[8]
Conclusion
Restorative justice holds the promise of transforming the juvenile justice landscape in India from a punitive to a rehabilitative and inclusive system. By focusing on healing rather than punishment, and by actively engaging all stakeholders in the justice process, RJ fosters accountability, empathy, and long-term societal harmony. The conceptual and ethical foundation of restorative justice aligns closely with constitutional values and international standards aimed at child protection and development.
Despite promising pilot projects and sporadic judicial encouragement, the institutionalization of RJ within India’s juvenile justice framework remains limited. The absence of formal legal provisions, lack of awareness among stakeholders, infrastructural constraints, and deep-rooted cultural attitudes toward punishment continue to impede its full-scale adoption. However, these obstacles are not insurmountable.
In the wake of evolving global best practices and the growing emphasis on human rights-based approaches, India stands at a crucial juncture. By embracing restorative justice, the country can significantly enhance the effectiveness of its juvenile justice system. Legislative reforms, capacity-building initiatives, public awareness campaigns, and stronger partnerships between government bodies and civil society organizations will be instrumental in this transformation.
Moreover, restorative justice provides an avenue to humanize the justice process for juveniles, acknowledging their capacity for change and growth. This is especially important in a country like India, where socioeconomic disparities and systemic inequities often influence juvenile behavior. RJ not only promotes healing and rehabilitation but also serves as a preventive mechanism by strengthening community bonds and reducing recidivism.[9]
In conclusion, the future of juvenile justice in India lies in embracing innovative, empathetic, and community-centric solutions. Restorative justice, with its proven potential to repair harm and foster reintegration, offers a compelling path forward one that balances accountability with compassion, and justice with hope.
References
- Bazemore, G., & Schiff, M. (2005). Juvenile justice reform and restorative justice: Building theory and policy from practice. Willan Publishing.
- Council of Europe. (2018). Restorative justice in criminal matters. https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/restorative-justice
- Council to Secure Justice. (2021). Restorative justice and child protection in India: Lessons from pilot programs. https://www.csjindia.org/publications
- Department of Women and Child Development. (2015). Court on Its Own Motion v. Department of Women and Child Development, Delhi High Court. (W.P. (C) 4825/2015)
- Gavrielides, T. (2014). Restorative justice, theory and practice: Addressing the discrepancy. European Commission.
- Johnstone, G., & Van Ness, D. W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of restorative justice. Willan Publishing.
- National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. (2020). Juvenile justice in India: A policy review. https://ncpcr.gov.in
- Prabhu, R. (2022). Restorative practices and juvenile offenders: Empirical studies in Indian contexts. Indian Journal of Criminology and Forensic Science, 18(2), 33–45.
- Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390 (Supreme Court of India).
- United Nations. (1985). United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules). https://www.ohchr.org
- United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://www.ohchr.org
- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2006). Handbook on restorative justice programmes. https://www.unodc.org
- UNICEF India. (2020). Restorative approaches for children in conflict with the law: A review of global and Indian practices. https://www.unicef.org/india
- Wright, M. (1996). Justice for victims and offenders: A restorative response to crime. Waterside Press.
[1] United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://www.ohchr.org
[2] United Nations. (1985). United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules). https://www.ohchr.org
[3] Department of Women and Child Development. (2015). Court on Its Own Motion v. Department of Women and Child Development, Delhi High Court (W.P. (C) 4825/2015)
[4] Council to Secure Justice. (2021). Restorative justice and child protection in India: Lessons from pilot programs. https://www.csjindia.org/publications
[5] Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390 (Supreme Court of India)
[6] Johnstone, G., & Van Ness, D. W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of restorative justice. Willan Publishing
[7] Gavrielides, T. (2014). Restorative justice, theory and practice: Addressing the discrepancy. European Commission
[8] Prabhu, R. (2022). Restorative practices and juvenile offenders: Empirical studies in Indian contexts. Indian Journal of Criminology and Forensic Science, 18(2), 33–45
[9] Council of Europe. (2018). Restorative justice in criminal matters. https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/restorative-justice