LANDMARK JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT SHAPING JUVENILE JUSTICE IN INDIA

Juveniles are considered children who have not attained the age of 18 years, or the age fixed by the law of that particular country. The determination of age is necessary in matters of crime, responsibility, and ascertaining liability. Juvenile Justice means providing adequate means and access to secure justice to those who don’t even know the meaning of crime. Although securing justice is not an easy task, and requires a rigorous process to secure the same. The evolution of juvenile justice in India has been significantly influenced by landmark judicial pronouncements that have redefined the scope of child rights and the treatment of juveniles within the criminal justice system. Cases such as Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) highlighted the need for humane conditions and speedy trials for juveniles, while Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013) and Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2014) reinforced the principle of reformative justice and the protection of juveniles from harsh punitive measures. At the same time, the Mukesh v. State (Nirbhaya Case, 2017) indirectly triggered debates leading to the 2015 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which allowed juveniles aged 16–18 to be tried as adults in heinous offences, reflecting a shift towards balancing societal demand for deterrence with the constitutional ethos of rehabilitation. These landmark judgments have shaped the future of juvenile justice in our country, demonstrating the active tension between reformation and retribution, while underscoring the judiciary’s role in shaping a sensitive, rights-based juvenile justice framework in India. This Article is going to discuss some of the well-known cases that play a critical role in the evolution of the concept from 1986 to the current time, and what are all the key observations and loopholes are still present in the legal provisions.