Know your laws: How kids' crimes expose chinks in legal system
According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, juveniles were involved in 31,365 crimes in 2023. That year, 40,036 children were arrested—nearly 79 percent of them between 16 and 18 years old.
Two recent cases have forced India to confront an uncomfortable reality about juvenile crime—and how the justice system responds to it.
In one case, a six-year-old girl was raped by three boys aged between 10 and 15. Her father publicly demanded that the accused be punished as adults. In another, a 17-year-old accused in the 2024 Pune Porsche crash—where two people were killed due to reckless driving—was granted bail.
The court asked the minor to write an essay reflecting on his actions, a direction that triggered nationwide outrage. The anger deepened when bail was also granted to the parents of co-accused minors.
Public fury followed swiftly. But outrage, however understandable, rarely leads to better justice.
These cases raise a larger and more difficult question: how does India actually deal with children who commit crimes? The answer lies not in the absence of laws, but in the growing gap between what the law promises and how it is carried out on the ground.
WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY
According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, juveniles were involved in 31,365 crimes in 2023. That year, 40,036 children were arrested—nearly 79 percent of them between 16 and 18 years old.
Despite public perception, most cases involving children are not violent or extreme. Yet a handful of brutal, high-profile incidents dominate the media and shape public opinion, often leading to demands for harsher punishment and dilution of child protection laws.
THE LAW AND ITS PHILOSOPHY
India’s Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is built on a simple but crucial idea: children are different from adults. Even when they commit serious crimes, they are still developing emotionally and mentally, with greater potential for reform.
Under the law, anyone below 18 who commits an offence is treated as a “child in conflict with law.” Once apprehended, the child must be produced before a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), not a regular criminal court. The JJB is expected to ensure counselling, a background assessment, and a plan focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
The aim is not to excuse crime, but to prevent a child from being permanently trapped in the criminal justice system.
WHY BAIL IS THE NORM
This philosophy is reflected in how bail works. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, bail is the default option for children, even in serious cases. Bail can only be denied if releasing the child would put them in danger, expose them to criminal influence, or seriously harm the course of justice.
Courts have repeatedly clarified that the seriousness of the crime alone is not enough to deny bail. This is because detention is seen as a last resort, not a punishment.
Yet in public discourse, bail is often seen as proof that the system is “soft” or indifferent to victims.
Child rights expert Neelam Singh, Director of the HAQ Centre for Child Rights, warns against letting emotional reactions drive legal decisions. “Laws should never be made or applied based on outrage,” she says. Media-driven anger, she argues, often oversimplifies complex cases and leads to poor policy choices.
WHEN CHILDREN ARE TRIED AS ADULTS
The law does make space for tougher treatment in limited cases. Offences are divided into petty, serious, and heinous categories. For heinous crimes committed by children aged 16 to 18, the Juvenile Justice Board must conduct a detailed assessment.
This assessment looks at the child’s mental maturity, understanding of consequences, and the circumstances of the crime. Based on this, the Board decides whether the child should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult in a Children’s Court.
This decision is life-changing.
If tried as a juvenile, the maximum sentence is three years, with no long-term criminal record and the possibility of wiping records clean later. If tried as an adult, the child could face life imprisonment, permanent disqualifications, and a lasting criminal record.
The Supreme Court has observed that this early assessment effectively decides a child’s future. That is why it must be done carefully, objectively, and with expert input.
WHERE THE SYSTEM BREAKS DOWN
The biggest problem is not the law—it is the system’s inability to carry it out properly.
A key part of the process is the Social Investigation Report, prepared by a probation officer within 15 days. This report examines the child’s family background, education, mental health, and rehabilitation needs. It plays a major role in decisions about bail and trial.
In reality, these reports are often delayed, rushed, or reduced to basic paperwork. Probation officers are overworked, undertrained, and rarely equipped to assess child psychology in depth.
The Supreme Court flagged these failures as early as 2018 in the Sampurna Behrua case, calling attention to massive vacancies in Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Welfare Committees, and State Commissions for Child Rights. It also noted a severe shortage of probation officers and unregistered child care institutions.
Eight years later, little has changed.
A SYSTEM STARVED OF RESOURCES
The India Justice Report released in November 2025 highlights the scale of neglect. Across the country, there are only 319 Observation Homes, 41 Special Homes, and 40 Places of Safety for children in conflict with law.
Nearly 45 percent of child care institutions operate without any counsellors. Rules require at least two mental health professionals per facility, yet only 70 out of 171 homes reported having even one.
Probation officers are similarly stretched. While guidelines require one to three officers per district, data from ten states shows just 145 officers handling over 25,000 cases. That’s an average of 175 cases per officer. In Delhi, the average workload rises to nearly 800 cases per officer.
WHAT HAPPENS ON THE GROUND
Advocate Shilpa Dalmia, who has worked as a Legal Aid Counsel at Delhi’s Juvenile Justice Board, describes widespread institutional apathy.
“On paper, preliminary assessments are mandatory. In reality, probation officers often just verify basic details and sign off,” she says. Counsellors, where they exist, are responsible for both victims and accused children, leaving little time for meaningful intervention.
While major mental health institutions receive funding, frontline services at Juvenile Justice Boards and Observation Homes remain neglected.
LIFE INSIDE OBSERVATION HOMES
Observation Homes, meant to be safe and rehabilitative spaces, often function more like detention centres. Counselling, education, and skill-building are minimal.
Worse, poor supervision leads to abuse within these facilities. Dalmia recounts cases where children were assaulted—sometimes sexually—by other inmates, with no effective response due to staff shortages.
Instead of reforming behaviour, these environments often reinforce trauma and criminal tendencies.
THE REAL GAP
The result is a system poorly equipped to handle either extreme violence or meaningful rehabilitation. Children accused of serious crimes do not fit neatly into a framework designed largely for petty offences. This leads to inconsistent decisions, bias, and sharp class differences—clearly visible in cases like the Pune Porsche crash.
Non-profits and NGOs try to fill the gaps, but they operate with limited funding and little state support.
Ultimately, the failure is institutional, not legal. Without trained counsellors, child psychologists, social workers, and properly staffed Juvenile Justice Boards, the promise of the Juvenile Justice Act remains hollow.
Until implementation matches intent, India will continue to swing between outrage and neglect—failing victims, and failing children in conflict with the law.
Two recent cases have forced India to confront an uncomfortable reality about juvenile crime—and how the justice system responds to it.
In one case, a six-year-old girl was raped by three boys aged between 10 and 15. Her father publicly demanded that the accused be punished as adults. In another, a 17-year-old accused in the 2024 Pune Porsche crash—where two people were killed due to reckless driving—was granted bail.
The court asked the minor to write an essay reflecting on his actions, a direction that triggered nationwide outrage. The anger deepened when bail was also granted to the parents of co-accused minors.
Public fury followed swiftly. But outrage, however understandable, rarely leads to better justice.
These cases raise a larger and more difficult question: how does India actually deal with children who commit crimes? The answer lies not in the absence of laws, but in the growing gap between what the law promises and how it is carried out on the ground.
WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY
According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, juveniles were involved in 31,365 crimes in 2023. That year, 40,036 children were arrested—nearly 79 percent of them between 16 and 18 years old.
Despite public perception, most cases involving children are not violent or extreme. Yet a handful of brutal, high-profile incidents dominate the media and shape public opinion, often leading to demands for harsher punishment and dilution of child protection laws.
THE LAW AND ITS PHILOSOPHY
India’s Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is built on a simple but crucial idea: children are different from adults. Even when they commit serious crimes, they are still developing emotionally and mentally, with greater potential for reform.
Under the law, anyone below 18 who commits an offence is treated as a “child in conflict with law.” Once apprehended, the child must be produced before a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), not a regular criminal court. The JJB is expected to ensure counselling, a background assessment, and a plan focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
The aim is not to excuse crime, but to prevent a child from being permanently trapped in the criminal justice system.
WHY BAIL IS THE NORM
This philosophy is reflected in how bail works. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, bail is the default option for children, even in serious cases. Bail can only be denied if releasing the child would put them in danger, expose them to criminal influence, or seriously harm the course of justice.
Courts have repeatedly clarified that the seriousness of the crime alone is not enough to deny bail. This is because detention is seen as a last resort, not a punishment.
Yet in public discourse, bail is often seen as proof that the system is “soft” or indifferent to victims.
Child rights expert Neelam Singh, Director of the HAQ Centre for Child Rights, warns against letting emotional reactions drive legal decisions. “Laws should never be made or applied based on outrage,” she says. Media-driven anger, she argues, often oversimplifies complex cases and leads to poor policy choices.
WHEN CHILDREN ARE TRIED AS ADULTS
The law does make space for tougher treatment in limited cases. Offences are divided into petty, serious, and heinous categories. For heinous crimes committed by children aged 16 to 18, the Juvenile Justice Board must conduct a detailed assessment.
This assessment looks at the child’s mental maturity, understanding of consequences, and the circumstances of the crime. Based on this, the Board decides whether the child should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult in a Children’s Court.
This decision is life-changing.
If tried as a juvenile, the maximum sentence is three years, with no long-term criminal record and the possibility of wiping records clean later. If tried as an adult, the child could face life imprisonment, permanent disqualifications, and a lasting criminal record.
The Supreme Court has observed that this early assessment effectively decides a child’s future. That is why it must be done carefully, objectively, and with expert input.
WHERE THE SYSTEM BREAKS DOWN
The biggest problem is not the law—it is the system’s inability to carry it out properly.
A key part of the process is the Social Investigation Report, prepared by a probation officer within 15 days. This report examines the child’s family background, education, mental health, and rehabilitation needs. It plays a major role in decisions about bail and trial.
In reality, these reports are often delayed, rushed, or reduced to basic paperwork. Probation officers are overworked, undertrained, and rarely equipped to assess child psychology in depth.
The Supreme Court flagged these failures as early as 2018 in the Sampurna Behrua case, calling attention to massive vacancies in Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Welfare Committees, and State Commissions for Child Rights. It also noted a severe shortage of probation officers and unregistered child care institutions.
Eight years later, little has changed.
A SYSTEM STARVED OF RESOURCES
The India Justice Report released in November 2025 highlights the scale of neglect. Across the country, there are only 319 Observation Homes, 41 Special Homes, and 40 Places of Safety for children in conflict with law.
Nearly 45 percent of child care institutions operate without any counsellors. Rules require at least two mental health professionals per facility, yet only 70 out of 171 homes reported having even one.
Probation officers are similarly stretched. While guidelines require one to three officers per district, data from ten states shows just 145 officers handling over 25,000 cases. That’s an average of 175 cases per officer. In Delhi, the average workload rises to nearly 800 cases per officer.
WHAT HAPPENS ON THE GROUND
Advocate Shilpa Dalmia, who has worked as a Legal Aid Counsel at Delhi’s Juvenile Justice Board, describes widespread institutional apathy.
“On paper, preliminary assessments are mandatory. In reality, probation officers often just verify basic details and sign off,” she says. Counsellors, where they exist, are responsible for both victims and accused children, leaving little time for meaningful intervention.
While major mental health institutions receive funding, frontline services at Juvenile Justice Boards and Observation Homes remain neglected.
LIFE INSIDE OBSERVATION HOMES
Observation Homes, meant to be safe and rehabilitative spaces, often function more like detention centres. Counselling, education, and skill-building are minimal.
Worse, poor supervision leads to abuse within these facilities. Dalmia recounts cases where children were assaulted—sometimes sexually—by other inmates, with no effective response due to staff shortages.
Instead of reforming behaviour, these environments often reinforce trauma and criminal tendencies.
THE REAL GAP
The result is a system poorly equipped to handle either extreme violence or meaningful rehabilitation. Children accused of serious crimes do not fit neatly into a framework designed largely for petty offences. This leads to inconsistent decisions, bias, and sharp class differences—clearly visible in cases like the Pune Porsche crash.
Non-profits and NGOs try to fill the gaps, but they operate with limited funding and little state support.
Ultimately, the failure is institutional, not legal. Without trained counsellors, child psychologists, social workers, and properly staffed Juvenile Justice Boards, the promise of the Juvenile Justice Act remains hollow.
Until implementation matches intent, India will continue to swing between outrage and neglect—failing victims, and failing children in conflict with the law.