Skip to content

Indian Exam Hub

Building The Largest Database For Students of India & World

Menu
  • Main Website
  • Free Mock Test
  • Fee Courses
  • Live News
  • Indian Polity
  • Shop
  • Cart
    • Checkout
  • Checkout
  • Youtube
Menu

Children in conflict with law

Posted on October 15, 2025 by user

Introduction

“Child in conflict with law” is a legal category that marks the point where childhood and criminal law intersect. It denotes a person below eighteen years of age who is alleged to have committed an offence. In India this concept is not an imprimatur for punitive adult-style trial; it triggers a distinct, welfare‑oriented process—balancing accountability, protection and rehabilitation—under the Juvenile Justice regime and international obligations (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). For practitioners working in criminal and child‑law practice, mastery of the statutory framework, procedural pathways and the range of dispositional options is indispensable: mistakes at the early stages (arrest, age proof, production before the proper forum) are rarely reversible and often determine the life‑course of the child.

Core Legal Framework

  • Primary statute: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015).
  • Definition: The JJ Act defines “child in conflict with law” (see s.2(13) JJ Act, 2015) as a child who is alleged to have committed an offence and who is found to have committed an offence. (See the JJ Act for the exact statutory text.)
  • Key operative provisions under the JJ Act (practitioners must refer to the statute and rules for full text and recent amendments):
    • Procedure and forum: provisions creating Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and detailing procedure for children in conflict with law (JJB as the primary decision‑making body).
    • Special dispensation for children aged 16–18 alleged to have committed “heinous offences”: provision for preliminary assessment by the JJB to determine whether the child should be dealt with as a juvenile or under regular criminal law and be tried by an adult court (the JJ Act provides the process and standards for this assessment).
    • Dispositional options and rehabilitation: orders for care, observation homes, special homes, probation, foster care, and after‑care programmes; emphasis on non‑institutional, restorative measures where feasible.
    • Rights safeguards: time‑limits for production before the JJB, legal aid, non‑separation from family unless necessary, prohibition on death penalty/life without parole for juveniles.
  • Subsidiary instruments:
  • Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules and State/Jurisdictional JJ Rules (detail procedural mechanics for JJBs, observation homes, social investigation reports).
  • National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) guidelines and State Legal Services Authorities (free legal aid to juveniles).
  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Beijing Rules (relevant for interpretive principle).
  • Ancillary statutes: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (offences); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (procedural overlaps such as arrest, custody and remand—subject always to JJ Act primacy for children); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (evidentiary rules).

Practical Application and Nuances

This section is practice‑heavy: how the term operates in everyday litigation and police practice, with concrete steps and pitfalls.

  1. Immediate policing and custody steps
  2. Arrest vs. production: Police must be mindful that a person under eighteen triggers JJ Act procedures. The correct immediate step is production before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) as soon as possible—practitioners must insist on statutory timelines (the JJ Act requires prompt production; delay should be highlighted in court).
  3. No custodial interrogation like adult suspects: The JJ Act and protective jurisprudence restrain police from subjecting children to adult custodial interrogation or prolonged detention; juvenile confessions to police are particularly vulnerable on admissibility and voluntariness grounds.
  4. Age determination at the earliest: obtain school records, birth certificate, Aadhaar, hospital records, vaccination cards, —and if documentary proof is absent, initiate medically accepted age assessment (with due process and consent). Chain of custody and forensic reporting standards matter: cross‑examine methodologies (ossification tests, dental X‑rays) and commission expert opinions (pediatrician, radiologist, forensic odontologist). Always file a short application seeking interim relief (no adult remand, immediate production before JJB) pending age determination.

    Explore More Resources

    • › Read more Government Exam Guru
    • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
    • › Live News Updates
    • › Read Books For Free
  5. Presentation before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)

  6. Role of JJB: preliminary inquiry, social investigation, orders (rehabilitative and protective). For lawyers, immediate tasks are:
    • Secure legal aid or private counsel designation.
    • Seek production of child in presence of parent/guardian and counsel.
    • Demand immediate Social Investigation Report (SIR)/Probation Officer’s report: this is central to all dispositional decisions.
    • Object to media reporting/public identification of the child; invoke statutory secrecy/privacy provisions and seek in‑camera hearings or suppression orders.
  7. Evidence focus before JJB: the inquiry is not a technical trial; the JJB weighs the child’s social circumstances, family background, antecedents and the nature of the offence. Leading evidence tends to be:

    • Material establishing age.
    • Social Investigation Report (Probation Officer).
    • Forensic/material evidence for or against commission of offence (if admissible in the JJB’s process).
    • Psychological/psychiatric evaluation where mental capacity or maturity is in issue.
  8. The 16–18 year old with a heinous offence (the most delicate practical area)

    Explore More Resources

    • › Read more Government Exam Guru
    • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
    • › Live News Updates
    • › Read Books For Free
  9. Preliminary assessment: when a child aged 16–18 is alleged to have committed a “heinous” offence, the JJB must undertake a preliminary assessment to determine whether the child should be tried as an adult. This is not a mini‑trial of guilt but a focused assessment of:
    • Mental and physical capacity to commit the offence.
    • Ability to understand the consequences of the offence.
    • Circumstances in which the offence was committed (including coercion, peer pressure, socio‑economic factors).
  10. Practitioner’s checklist:
    • Push for comprehensive, contemporaneous medical/psychological assessments by independent experts (court‑appointed where possible) rather than perfunctory certification by treating hospital.
    • Cross‑examine the standards and method used in the assessment; demand that reasoning be recorded (the JJB’s order should not be a bare conclusion).
    • If the JJB errs in procedure (no informed inquiry, no SIR, or arbitrary reliance on police opinion), immediately move writ jurisdiction or statutory appeal—time is of the essence.
  11. If JJB transfers the child to be tried as an adult, immediate challenge avenues include procedural irregularity, failure to consider statutory factors and failure to provide existing rehabilitative alternatives.

  12. Dispositions and rehabilitation orders — what lawyers should litigate for

  13. Range of orders: restoration to family, community service, probation, counseling, placement in special home/observation home (institutional orders should be last resort), vocational training, compensation to victim (restorative justice), long‑term aftercare.
  14. Strategic uses of the SIR: build a strong SIR to counter prosecution narrative—detail school, employment prospects, rehabilitative support from family, prior good character.
  15. Bail and interim relief: while JJB regimes are different, securing interim non‑institutional care and rehabilitation while inquiry proceeds is often critical. Where criminal courts have jurisdiction (in transferred matters), argue bail on child‑specific grounds—need for restoration and rehabilitation.

    Explore More Resources

    • › Read more Government Exam Guru
    • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
    • › Live News Updates
    • › Read Books For Free
  16. Evidence and admissibility nuances

  17. Statements to police: heavily scrutinize voluntariness; in many cases the best strategy is to show coercive environment and obtain exclusion.
  18. Identification procedures: police identification parades must account for child’s vulnerability; object to suggestive procedures.
  19. Expert evidence: use forensic, psychiatric and school authorities to counter the prosecution’s narrative—experts should be briefed on the limited but pivotal scope of their opinions (maturity, cognitive ability, capacity to understand consequences).

Landmark Judgments

(Select cases that have shaped child‑justice practice; practitioners should read the full texts and subsequent citations.)

  • Sheela Barse v. Union of India (Supreme Court) — widely cited in the context of the detention of vulnerable persons, the rights of prisoners and the special safeguards required for juveniles in custody. The judgment emphasises humane conditions, legal assistance and safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of liberty for persons in vulnerable groups, including children.
  • Bachpan Bachao Andolan (numerous orders) — public interest litigation and orders by the Supreme Court and High Courts arising out of interventions by this NGO have led to expansive remedial directions on rescue, restoration and rehabilitation of trafficked and exploited children, and have kept the child’s welfare horizon central in enforcement proceedings.

(Practical note: the JJ Act and its Rules have generated a large Indian jurisprudence; practitioners must cross‑check recent Supreme Court rulings on preliminary assessment of 16–18 year olds and JJB procedures, and monitor state‑level rules which modulate implementation. Use Up‑to‑date law reports and databases.)

Explore More Resources

  • › Read more Government Exam Guru
  • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
  • › Live News Updates
  • › Read Books For Free

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

  • First 24–48 hours determine everything: insist on immediate production before JJB; preserve age evidence; prevent police from conducting custodial interrogation.
  • Build a robust Social Investigation Report (SIR): commission or assist the probation officer to prepare a detailed SIR; supply school/employment/health records and family affidavits—JJBs rely heavily on SIRs.
  • Use diversion actively: wherever factual circumstances allow, argue for diversion/non‑institutional measures. Courts and JJBs are receptive to well‑documented rehabilitative plans (training, family reintegration, counselling).
  • For 16–18 year olds facing heinous charges:
  • Treat preliminary assessment as the key battleground. Assemble independent psychiatric, psychological and social expert evidence; insist on recorded findings; challenge any procedural lacuna.
  • If JJB orders adult trial, file immediate challenge on jurisdictional/ procedural grounds and on the adequacy of the preliminary assessment.
  • Age proof: be meticulous—early collection, preservation, sworn affidavits and multiple concurrent records reduce the risk of adverse ossification tests. If ossification is used, ensure chain of custody, methodology and the radiologist’s credentials are on record.
  • Media and privacy: move promptly for gag/suppression orders to protect the child’s identity and future prospects. Use statutory privacy protections and Supreme Court precedents on non‑publication of juvenile identity.
  • Avoid common pitfalls:
  • Treating juveniles as mini‑adults—advocate for the statutory welfare lens.
  • Relying solely on state‑conducted medical age tests without independent counter‑opinions.
  • Allowing unrepresented appearances before JJBs; secure counsel immediately.
  • Neglecting rehabilitative/dispositional advocacy; focusing only on guilt/innocence misses the statutory emphasis and can produce worse outcomes.

Conclusion

“Child in conflict with law” is not merely a label—it triggers a dedicated statutory machinery that prioritises rehabilitation, privacy and child‑specific procedural safeguards. For practitioners, success rests on fast, technical interventions at the policing stage (age proof, production before JJB), crafting a compelling SIR and rehabilitation plan, and litigating aggressively on procedural safeguards where the stakes are the child’s liberty and future. In cases of older juveniles (16–18) accused of heinous offences, the preliminary assessment is the fulcrum: robust, independent expert inputs and strict scrutiny of the JJB’s reasoning are indispensable. Above all, strategy should align with the JJ Act’s core purpose—accountability tempered by protection and the possibility of reintegration.

Youtube / Audibook / Free Courese

  • Financial Terms
  • Geography
  • Indian Law Basics
  • Internal Security
  • International Relations
  • Uncategorized
  • World Economy
Federal Reserve BankOctober 16, 2025
Economy Of TuvaluOctober 15, 2025
MagmatismOctober 14, 2025
Warrant OfficerOctober 15, 2025
Writ PetitionOctober 15, 2025
Fibonacci ExtensionsOctober 16, 2025