research paper juvenile delinquency (1).docx

P a g e | 1
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACTS 2015 AND 2021 IN
PREVENTING JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Abstract:
This paper presents an idea of how the juvenile justice amendment Act 2021 highlighted
the main issue resolving its previous act which is Juvenile Justice Act 2015. The main aim
is to necessitate the effectiveness of the current act with Juvenile Justice Act 2015
(hereinafter referred to as the principle Act) in the context of juvenile delinquency and its
prevention. This research paper deals with the implications of both Acts and a
Comparative analysis in order to protect and care for the children. The Act deals with the
age of heinous Offenses, expungement of records of non-disclosure agreement),
sentencing options and the composition of Juvenile Justice Boards.
INTRODUCTION:
The Juvenile Justice Act of 1986's Section 2(a) originally defined a juvenile or child as a
person who has not reached the age of 16 if they are a boy or the age of 18 if they are a
girl. Later, a juvenile or child is defined as “a person under the age of 18 under
Section 2 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. A kid in
conflict with the law is defined by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 as “a child who is alleged
or determined to have committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen
years of age on the date of such offence.”
Delinquency is typically regarded as deviant behaviour. Simply put, it is an anti-social
behaviour known as delinquency that is typically not normal. Juvenile delinquency is
defined in a legal context as behaviour that violates the law by someone under the
age of 18. However generally, a kid's anti-social and deviant behaviour that occurs before
a certain age is known as juvenile delinquency. According to its etymology, the word
“delinquency” comes from the Latin verb delinquent, which means “to omit.” The term was
first used by the Romans to describe someone who did not complete the task or
obligation that was expected of them. William Coxson is credited with coining the term
“delinquent” in 1484 to characterize a person found guilty of a common offence. The word
was used in Shakespeare's well-known play “Macbeth” in 1605. Delinquency can be
defined as a type of behaviour, or more accurately, misbehavior or a departure from the
widely recognized norms of conduct in society.1
1
(Sadaf & Punam Kumari Bhagat (n. 1) – just the william coxson part (2.4 JCLJ (2022) 1725
Juvenile Delinquency: A detailed Study)

P a g e | 2
A critical study revealed that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 had failed to accomplish the afore-mentioned objectives as the efforts were all at the
legislative levels and executive efforts had been inefficient. The consequential effect of
such partial initiatives was the juvenile justice had become a curative rather than a
preventive endeavour for our policy makers. Further, the system called for complete
overhauling to tackle the sluggish pace of judicial processes and lack of proper care at
observation homes. And furthermore, the involvement of a minor in the famous Delhi
Gang-Rape incident in 2012, the Central Government managed to pass vital amendment
in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act in the year 2015 which brings
down the age of juveniles from 18 years to 16 years for trying a minor as an adult for
serious crimes. Thus, the problem of juvenile delinquency is becoming more complicated
and universal. The crime prevention programmes are either unequipped to deal with the
realities of contemporary nature or they do not exist. The developing countries like India
are engaged in serious activities aimed at juvenile crime-prevention but over-all result is
not satisfactory because the focus is inly to put in place retributive and deterrent legal
mechanisms neglecting in totality dominant factors pushing and inducing immature
segment of society into the quagmire of crime.2
JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT OF 2015 AND ITS OBJECTIVES
The Act seeks to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Children as ratified by India on December 11, 1992. It specifies procedural safeguards in
cases of children in conflict with law. It seeks to address challenges in the existing Act
such as delays in adoption processes, high pendency of cases, accountability of
institutions, etc. The Act further seeks to address children in the 16-18 age group, in
conflict with law, as an increased incidence of crimes committed by them have been
reported over the past few years.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has come into force from
January 15, 2016 and repeals the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000
In the case of Mukesh v. State of Delhi, which is the “Delhi Gang Rape case” was refused
to grant the harsher punishment by the apex court and tried as a minor. One of the rapists
was under the age of 18 at the time of the offense and so, it gave him security from harsh
punishment. But this decision led to questions and led the apex court to rethink. This drew
a lot of criticisms as to why the age of eighteen was the criterion. In 2015,
an amendment was brought to the prior legislation and the Juvenile Justice
2
(23 ALJ (2015-16) 258 Juvenile Delinquency in India: A Socio-Legal Study)

P a g e | 3
(Care and Protection) Act was approved which tried children of age 16-18 years as an
adult in case of a heinous crime committed by them.3
Regardless of the fact that juvenile misbehavior is not new in India, the prevalence of
crime is not diminishing, raising serious concerns. The number of juvenile offences grew
from 28677 in 2018 to 29287 in 2019, according to NCRB data for 2019. Various statistics
and audits submitted by national and state organizations also showed a lack of and
ineffective laws in place (following the 2015 amendment) to regulate the operations of
Child Care Institutions. The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights
(NCPCR) reviewed Child Care Institutions in 2020 and discovered that 90% of them were
managed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and that 39% of CCIs were not
registered. According to the study, these home care providers placed a larger value on
obtaining finances than on the rehabilitation of Children. As a result, the law was
submitted to put in place measures to improve child protection forums.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2021 looks to
alter the previous Act. This amendment is intended to strengthen children’s protection. It
aims to improve child protection at the district level by allowing District Magistrates,
including Additional District Magistrates. Further, it aims to give the District Magistrates,
including Additional District Magistrates, the jurisdiction to issue adoption orders in order
to resolve adoption delays. It seeks to improve the Child Welfare Committee by including
provisions relating to educational credentials for members and specifying eligibility criteria
for committee membership. It proposed to categorize those offences wherein maximum
sentence is more than 7 years of imprisonment but no minimum sentence, or a minimum
sentence of less than 7 years has been provided as “serious offences” under the Juvenile
Justice Act; and to resolve issues with the Juvenile Justice Act’s interpretation.4
Research methodology
The research methodology for the comparative analysis of the Juvenile Justice Acts 2015
and 2021 regarding juvenile delinquency involves a qualitative approach. Data is
collected through a comprehensive review of the two Acts, legal literature, scholarly
3
Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi, (2017) 6 SCC 1
4
https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-juvenile-justice-care-and-protection-of-children-
amendment-bill-2021)
https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/lok-sabha-passes-bill-to-amend-juvenile-justice-act-
empower-district-magistrates-to-authorise-adoption-orders-171681

P a g e | 4
articles, and relevant case studies. A comparative framework is established to
systematically analyze key aspects such as age thresholds for heinous offenses,
sentencing options, rehabilitation strategies, and provisions for victim compensation. The
study will critically assess the impact of changes introduced in the 2021 Act, highlighting
strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, an examination of practical implications and
potential challenges is conducted. The research aims to contribute to a nuanced
understanding of legislative shifts and their effectiveness in preventing juvenile
delinquency.
KEY CHANGES IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2021
6 major amendments were made in the juvenile justice act 2021 which was made after
thorough research in the importance of protecting and caring of children. A new definition
of serious offences, Classification of offences, Provisions relating to adoption,
Amendments in the provision relating to appeals, Child welfare committees (CWC) and
Additional functions of the district magistrate.
 Adoption: Under the Act, once prospective adoptive parents accept a child, an
adoption agency files an application in a civil court to obtain the adoption order.
The adoption order issued by the court establishes that the child belongs to the
adoptive parents. The Bill provides that instead of the court, the district magistrate
(including additional district magistrate) will perform these duties and issue all
such orders
 Appeals: The Bill provides that any person aggrieved by an adoption order passed
by the district magistrate may file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner,
within 30 days of such order. Such appeals should be disposed within four weeks
from the date of filing of the appeal.
The Act provides that there will be no appeal for any order made by a Child
Welfare Committee concluding that a person is not a child in need of care and
protection. The Bill removes this provision.
 Serious offences: The Act provides that the Juvenile Justice Board will inquire
about a child who is accused of a serious offence. Serious offences are those for
which the punishment is imprisonment between three to seven years. The Bill adds
that serious offences will also include offences for which maximum punishment is
imprisonment of more than seven years, and minimum punishment is not
prescribed or is less than seven years.

P a g e | 5
 Designated Court: The Act provides that offences against children that are
punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years, will be tried in the
Children’s Court (equivalent to a Sessions Court). Other offences (punishable with
imprisonment of less than seven years) will be tried by a Judicial Magistrate. The
Bill amends this to provide that all offences under the Act will be tried in the
Children’s Court.
 Offences against children: The Act provides that an offence under the Act, which
is punishable with imprisonment between three to seven years will be cognizable
(where arrest is allowed without warrant) and non-bailable. The Bill provides that
such offences will be non-cognizable and non-bailable.
 Child Welfare Committees (CWCs): The Act provides that states must constitute
one or more CWCs for each district for dealing with children in need of care and
protection. It provides certain criteria for the appointment of members to CWC.
For instance, a member should be: (i) involved in health, education, or welfare of
children for at least seven years, or (ii) a practising professional with a degree in
child psychology, psychiatry, law, or social work. The Bill adds certain criteria for
a person to be ineligible to be a member of the CWC. These include: (i) having
any record of violation of human rights or child rights, or (ii) being a part of the
management of a child care institution in a district.5
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
According to the section 2(54) of the principal act6
, which explains that the
punishment period is between is 3 to 7 years. So the juvenile justice may follow this
procedure for the trials in Crpc.
In the case of Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020), the Supreme Court ruled
that the Juvenile Justice Act does not encompass the fourth category of offenses,
which includes those with a maximum sentence exceeding seven years but lacking
a minimum sentence or having a minimum sentence of less than seven years. The
Court categorized such offenses as "serious offenses" under the Act. The Court
directed the Law Ministry and the Home Ministry to ensure that Parliament promptly
5
https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-juvenile-justice-care-and-protection-of-children-amendment-bill-2021
6
“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;

P a g e | 6
addresses the issue concerning the fourth category of offenses highlighted in this
verdict.7
To implement the aforementioned guidance, The Act seeks to redefine the term
“serious offences” to encompass offences that are punishable by:
 minimum imprisonment for a term of 3-7 years;
 maximum imprisonment for a term of more than 7 years but no
minimum imprisonment or minimum imprisonment of less than 7
years.
The 2021 amendment altered the section 86(2) of the principal act. Now, offenses
falling within this prison term range are classified as non-cognizable (mandating an
arrest warrant) and non-bailable (denying immediate bail). This change signifies a
departure from the previous approach, as these offenses were earlier both cognizable
and non-bailable. The amendment underscores a shift in how the legal system
handles these specific offenses, potentially affecting the procedures involved in their
investigation, arrest, and subsequent legal proceedings. This alteration aims to align
the treatment of such offenses with different considerations while upholding the
broader objectives of the juvenile justice system.
As per the Amendment Act there is a major change in section 86 of the principal act to
the amended act where an extra clause was added which explains why these offences
where not triable in the children’s court and in the newly amended section 86(4),
Regardless of the provisions outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, or the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, offenses governed by the Juvenile Justice Act shall be
subject to trial exclusively in the jurisdiction of the Children's Court. This stipulation
establishes that the jurisdiction for trying offenses under the Juvenile Justice Act lies
solely within the purview of the designated Children's Court, overriding any jurisdiction
that might otherwise apply under the mentioned Acts.
7
(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 787: (2020) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 823: 2020 SCC OnLine SC20

P a g e | 7
IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS THE CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE 2021 ACT ON
PREVENTING JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
The changes introduced in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of
2021 carry significant implications for preventing juvenile delinquency. These
amendments reflect a concerted effort to address evolving challenges and align the
juvenile justice system with contemporary needs. The potential impact of these changes
is multifaceted:
1. Deterrence and Accountability: The Act's provision to treat certain offenses committed
by 16- and 17-year-olds as adult crimes for heinous offenses may serve as a deterrent,
sending a message that serious crimes will not go unpunished. This aligns with the
broader principle of accountability for grave wrongdoing, potentially discouraging juvenile
delinquency.
2. Comprehensive Sentencing Options: The expanded range of dispositional options,
including rehabilitative measures like counseling, community service, and probation,
provides a holistic approach to address the underlying factors contributing to delinquency.
This can aid in reducing recidivism by focusing on reformation rather than solely punitive
measures.
3. Focused Special Juvenile Police Units: The establishment of Special Juvenile Police
Units can lead to specialized investigation and handling of juvenile cases, enhancing the
accuracy of evidence collection and ensuring a balanced approach that considers the
best interests of the child.
4. Foster Care and Family Reintegration: The introduction of foster care as an alternative
to institutionalization can facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration of juvenile offenders
within a family-oriented environment. This has the potential to reduce the risk of
reoffending and promote positive behavior through stable familial support.
5. Addressing Online Offenses: The inclusion of provisions for cyberbullying and cyber
harassment recognizes the changing landscape of delinquency in the digital age. By
addressing online offenses, the Act acknowledges the importance of curbing emerging
forms of delinquent behavior.

P a g e | 8
6. Expungement of Records: The provision for the expungement of records allows
juvenile offenders a fresh start upon reaching a certain age, enabling their successful
reintegration into society. This approach can help reduce the long-term stigma associated
with a criminal record and encourage a positive life trajectory.
7. Enhanced Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs): The inclusion of more experts in JJBs can
lead to more informed decision-making, ensuring that the rehabilitation and reintegration
needs of juvenile offenders are adequately addressed.
8. Victim Compensation: The provision for victim compensation underscores the
importance of accountability and restitution, aiming to restore the well-being of victims and
possibly contributing to a sense of closure for affected parties.
While these changes exhibit a comprehensive approach, their effectiveness in preventing
juvenile delinquency depends on successful implementation, adequate resources, and
collaboration among stakeholders. The Act's emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration,
coupled with measures to deter serious offenses, reflects a balanced strategy to address
juvenile delinquency and promote a just and equitable juvenile justice system.
IMPLICATIONS OF TREATING CERTAIN JUVENILE OFFENDERS AS ADULTS FOR
HEINOUS OFFENCES
Treating certain juvenile offenders as adults for heinous offenses has significant
implications, both from a legal and societal standpoint. This approach represents a
departure from the traditional focus on rehabilitation and reintegration within the juvenile
justice system. the analysis of these implications includes the following:
 Deterrence and accountability
Treating juvenile offenders as adults for heinous crimes sends a strong message of
accountability and may serve as a deterrent to potential offenders. The prospect of
facing adult penalties could discourage young individuals from engaging in serious
criminal activities.
 Loss of rehabilitation focus

P a g e | 9
While accountability is crucial, the approach may lead to a reduced emphasis on
rehabilitation, which has been a fundamental principle of the juvenile justice system.
a punitive approach may hinder efforts to address the underlying causes of
delinquency and provide offenders with an opportunity for reform.
 Long-term consequences
Subjecting juvenile offenders to adult criminal processes may result in more severe
penalties, including longer prison sentences. This could have long-lasting
consequences on their future prospects for reintegration into society and personal
development.
 Potential for recidivism
Adult correctional facilities may not be equipped to address the unique needs of
juvenile offenders. Placing them in adult environments could increase the risk of
exposure to more experienced and potentially harmful influences, leading to a
higher likelihood of recidivism.
 Legal and ethical considerations
Treating juveniles as adults raises ethical questions about fairness, given their
cognitive and emotional immaturity. It challenges the premise of distinguishing
juvenile and adult offenders based on their developmental stage and capacity for
reform.
 Legal challenges
The logistics of applying adult criminal procedures to juvenile offenders may present
legal challenges. Ensuring due process, protection of rights, and appropriate
treatment in adult facilities could be complex and may require significant resources.
 Disproportionate impact
The approach could disproportionately affect marginalized or socioeconomically
disadvantaged youth, as they may have less access to legal representation and
resources to navigate the adult criminal system.
 Focus on prevention
An alternative approach is to focus on preventing juvenile offenders from engaging
in serious offenses in the first place. By addressing risk factors, providing education,
support, and intervention programs, society can aim to reduce the occurrence of
heinous crimes committed by juveniles.
CRITIQUE AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

P a g e | 10
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Acts of 2015 and 2021, while
sharing common objectives of preventing juvenile delinquency, exhibit distinctive
approaches and provisions that reflect evolving perspectives on the treatment of juvenile
offenders. Evaluating their strengths and weaknesses in preventing juvenile delinquency
provides insights into the effectiveness of these legislative frameworks.
The 2015 Act emphasized rehabilitation as a core principle, acknowledging the potential
for reform among juvenile offenders. Its focus on age-appropriate treatment aligned with
international standards and recognized the developmental differences between juveniles
and adults. By prioritizing the rehabilitation and reintegration of juvenile offenders, the Act
aimed to address the root causes of delinquency and offer young individuals a chance to
reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.
However, the 2015 Act faced limitations, particularly in addressing heinous offenses
committed by juveniles. The absence of provisions to treat certain serious offenses as
adult crimes potentially resulted in perceived leniency for grave wrongdoings. Moreover,
the Act did not specifically address the rise of online offenses, leaving a gap in tackling
modern forms of juvenile delinquency facilitated by technology.
The 2021 amendment brought significant changes, notably the provision to treat certain
offenses committed by 16- and 17-year-olds as adult crimes for heinous offenses. This
marked shift reflects a heightened emphasis on accountability and deterrence, aligning
with global trends that recognize the need to address serious crimes committed by
juveniles more effectively. By holding older juveniles accountable for their actions in a
manner resembling the adult justice system, the 2021 Act aims to deter potential
offenders and send a strong message that serious crimes will be met with appropriate
consequences.
The introduction of diverse dispositional options, including foster care, signifies a
comprehensive approach to rehabilitation and reintegration in the 2021 Act. This
acknowledges that a one-size-fits-all approach may not effectively address the diverse
needs of juvenile offenders. The Act's provisions for victim compensation and online
offenses show an awareness of evolving challenges and a commitment to staying current
in addressing contemporary forms of delinquency.
However, the 2021 Act also raises concerns. The shift towards treating certain juveniles
as adults for heinous offenses has potential drawbacks. While it underscores

P a g e | 11
accountability, it may undermine the rehabilitation-focused approach that has been a
cornerstone of juvenile justice systems. Placing greater emphasis on punishment might
neglect the opportunity to address the underlying factors contributing to delinquent
behavior, potentially hindering long-term prevention.
Ethical considerations come into play with the 2021 Act's approach. Treating juveniles as
adults raises questions about fairness, given their cognitive and emotional immaturity.
Striking a balance between holding young offenders accountable and recognizing their
capacity for reform is a delicate task, and the Act's stance may invite legal and ethical
challenges.
Resource allocation is another consideration. Successfully implementing the provisions of
the 2021 Act may require substantial resources, from specialized facilities to training for
law enforcement and judicial officials. Ensuring that juvenile offenders are treated fairly
and effectively under the new provisions demands adequate infrastructure and support.
Additionally, the 2021 Act's stricter measures for heinous offenses might
disproportionately affect marginalized youth. Those with fewer resources may face
greater challenges in navigating the legal system, potentially exacerbating existing
inequities within the justice system.
The juvenile justice system holds the potential for further enhancement across various
dimensions to better address the complex challenges of preventing and addressing
juvenile delinquency. Early intervention programs can play a pivotal role by identifying at-
risk youth and providing timely support through mentorship and counseling. Embracing
restorative justice practices offers an alternative framework that emphasizes
accountability, reconciliation, and healing, fostering a more comprehensive response to
delinquency.
Specialized training for law enforcement and legal professionals is essential, equipping
them with insights into juvenile development, trauma-informed care, and effective
communication techniques. Expanding alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can
divert cases away from formal legal processes, minimizing the potential negative impact
on juveniles. Concurrently, prioritizing mental health services within the juvenile justice
system addresses the underlying psychological factors contributing to delinquent
behavior.

P a g e | 12
Comprehensive educational and vocational initiatives within detention facilities pave the
way for skill development and future opportunities, reducing the risk of recidivism.
Collecting robust data and conducting research on juvenile delinquency trends enables
evidence-based decision-making and the formulation of targeted interventions.
Collaborative efforts involving families, schools, and local organizations through
community-based rehabilitation programs offer a supportive network for successful
reintegration.
Addressing disparities remains paramount, necessitating ongoing efforts to rectify racial
and socioeconomic inequalities within the juvenile justice system. Meanwhile, heightened
public awareness and education on juvenile justice matters foster an informed and
compassionate societal environment. Furthermore, restoring civil rights for rehabilitated
individuals supports their full reintegration into society.
In a broader context, a holistic approach acknowledges the multifaceted nature of juvenile
delinquency, recognizing the interplay of social, economic, and environmental factors. By
continually refining and expanding these aspects, the juvenile justice system can
effectively prevent delinquency, ensure equitable treatment, and provide a foundation for
the positive development of young individuals and communities.
CONCLUSION

P a g e | 13
The comparative analysis of the Juvenile Justice Acts of 2015 and 2021 reveals distinct
shifts in the approach to preventing juvenile delinquency. The main findings underscore a
departure from a singular focus on rehabilitation to a balanced consideration of
accountability and deterrence, particularly evident in the 2021 Act.
The significance of the changes introduced in the 2021 Act lies in its response to
contemporary challenges. Treating certain juvenile offenders as adults for heinous
offenses reflects a heightened commitment to accountability, sending a clear message
about the gravity of serious crimes committed by young individuals. The Act's provisions
also acknowledge the digital age by addressing cyberbullying and online offenses,
aligning with modern forms of delinquency that demand attention.
These changes carry a nuanced impact on preventing juvenile delinquency. While the
2015 Act's emphasis on rehabilitation remains crucial, the 2021 Act introduces a stronger
deterrent factor through its accountability-oriented measures. By recognizing the capacity
for reform while acknowledging the need for proportional consequences, the 2021 Act
strives for a holistic approach that aligns with evolving societal expectations.
In broader terms, the comparative analysis highlights the ongoing evolution of India's
juvenile justice system. The changes in the 2021 Act signify a conscious effort to adapt to
contemporary realities, balancing traditional principles with modern imperatives. This
evolution reflects a maturing understanding of juvenile delinquency prevention,
recognizing that a multi-faceted approach encompassing rehabilitation, deterrence, and
responsiveness to emerging challenges is essential.
In conclusion, the comparative analysis underscores the transformative impact of the
changes introduced in the 2021 Act. By diversifying dispositional options, addressing
online offenses, and adopting a more accountable stance for serious crimes, the Act
contributes to a holistic strategy for preventing juvenile delinquency. The broader
implications for juvenile justice in India lie in the harmonization of traditional values with
contemporary demands, demonstrating a forward-looking commitment to safeguarding
the well-being of both young offenders and society as a whole.

research paper juvenile delinquency (1).docx

More Related Content

Similar to research paper juvenile delinquency (1).docx

Recently uploaded

research paper juvenile delinquency (1).docx