The Allahabad High Court expressed deep concern over the complete absence of essential infrastructure and support mechanisms required for implementing the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in Uttar Pradesh, observing that this systemic vacuum effectively frustrates the law’s restorative justice objectives. The issue came to light during the hearing of a criminal appeal by a juvenile seeking bail, where the bench noted that the state’s own counsel admitted that there was no information about recognised institutions such as “fit persons,” group foster care institutions, foster care givers and case workers anywhere in the state. These entities are statutorily mandated under the Juvenile Justice Act and its associated rules to provide rehabilitation and reintegration support to children in conflict with the law, particularly after they are released on bail or exit the juvenile justice system. Their absence, the court observed, means that critical components of the rehabilitation and reintegration programme, including the individual child care plan, cannot be executed, thereby rendering the legislative mandate ineffective.
The bench observed that these recognised institutions and professionals are crucial pillars of post-release support and are intended to provide monitoring, care, education, counselling and other guidance necessary to ensure that juveniles do not relapse into criminal activity. Without such infrastructure, the High Court said, the restorative justice model envisaged by the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be implemented in practice, leaving vulnerable children without the statutory support anticipated by the legislation. The judge noted that the lack of any identifiable recognised entities under the Act meant that even when bail is granted to a juvenile, there is no mechanism to create or implement the required rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. The court remarked that such a situation effectively negates the beneficent intent of the Juvenile Justice Act and violates the rights of children in conflict with the law, who are among the most vulnerable sections of society.
Given these realities, the High Court directed the Additional Advocate General representing the state to file an affidavit addressing a comprehensive list of issues related to the Juvenile Justice Act’s implementation. These included the criteria adopted by the state for determining “fit institutions,” group foster care institutions, foster care givers and case workers; details of any such entities that have been identified and recognised; the feasibility of designating schools and teachers as fit institutions and persons for purposes of education and care plans under the Act; and the possibility of incentivising such institutions and teachers to upgrade their facilities and skills. The court also sought information on whether volunteer groups, civil society organisations and professionals could be recognised to participate in the rehabilitation and reintegration programme, and whether collaboration with educational bodies such as SCERT, NCERT, NCTE, state universities and schools could be explored for developing pedagogy and curriculum for children in conflict with the law.
In addition to education and curriculum development, the court asked the state to outline plans for training teachers and mentors who may be involved in individual child care plans. It directed the state to consider coordination among multiple departments, including Women and Child Development, Education at all levels, Social Welfare, Health and Medical Education, Sports, Culture, Police, Law, and others, to ensure a unified and effective implementation strategy. The bench also ordered the state government to convene a conference with Additional Chief Secretaries of the relevant departments and file a consolidated affidavit reflecting a unified stand on how to operationalise the statutory rehabilitation and reintegration framework. District Probation Officers and District Inspectors of Schools for the specific districts involved were directed to assist the court in finalising the plan.
The High Court’s intervention highlights the stark disconnect between the statutory vision of the Juvenile Justice Act and ground realities in Uttar Pradesh, where the absence of recognised rehabilitative infrastructure undermines the law’s restorative justice goals. The court’s directions aim to compel the state to undertake concrete action to build and recognise appropriate institutions, enlist qualified persons, devise educational and rehabilitative curricula, and foster inter-departmental collaboration to ensure that the juvenile justice system functions in accordance with legislative intent and provides meaningful post-release support to children in conflict with the law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.