Introduction
During my internship, I had the opportunity to visit the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). What initially appeared to be an academic exposure soon turned into deeply reflective experience. Interacting with children in conflict with law, speaking to them about their daily routines, and listening to their concerns offered insight that you cannot get from reading laws or case files alone. This visit prompted me to reflect on an often overlooked issue within the juvenile justice system.
Ground-Level Observations
The visit to the Juvenile Justice Board revealed realities that are often absent from theoretical discussions of juvenile justice. While interacting with the children present, it became evident that not all of them had been brought before the Board due to any direct involvement in an offence.
In several instances, children were present solely because of ongoing disputes within their families, where criminal complaints had been filed against multiple members of the household.
A striking aspect of these interactions was the limited understanding the children had regarding their presence in the legal process. Many were unable to explain the nature of the case or the reason for their appearance before the Board. This lack of awareness appeared to heighten their discomfort and anxiety, as they were placed in a formal legal environment without adequate explanation or preparation.
Disruption to Daily Life
The impact of such involvement extended beyond the courtroom. The requirement to attend proceedings disrupted the children’s daily routines, including school and social interactions, and exposed them to legal procedures designed primarily for adults.
- Disruption of regular schooling
- Interference with social interactions
- Exposure to adult-oriented legal procedures
These observations highlighted a concerning gap between the protective intent of the juvenile justice system and the lived experiences of children who become incidentally involved in legal proceedings. Rather than being shielded from harm, such children risk experiencing confusion and emotional distress, despite having committed no wrongdoing.
Psychological Impact on Children
The juvenile justice framework rightly emphasises confidentiality and protection of identity. However, these safeguards alone cannot fully protect a child from psychological harm.
Exposure to legal proceedings—especially without clarity or understanding—can lead to significant psychological stress and emotional harm for children.
| Aspect | Observed Impact |
|---|---|
| Understanding of Process | Limited or absent awareness of case details |
| Emotional State | Increased anxiety, discomfort, and stress |
| Long-Term Effect | Risk of anger, resentment, and emotional harm |
For a child with no direct involvement, repeated interaction with the justice system may leave a lasting impression. Instead of rehabilitation and reform, there exists a risk that unresolved emotions such as anger or resentment may develop—an outcome that runs contrary to the objectives of juvenile justice.
Research Findings
Studies in child psychology consistently show that exposure to adversarial legal processes can significantly affect a child’s emotional and cognitive development. Research cited by UNICEF and the World Health Organisation indicates that children exposed to prolonged legal uncertainty are more likely to experience anxiety disorder, sleep disturbances, behavioral regression, and difficulties in academic performance. The absence of clear communication and child-friendly explanations further exacerbates these effects.
Indian Context and Emotional Impact
In the Indian context, children involved in family disputes often experience a sense of misplaced guilt and fear of authority. When children are repeatedly brought before judicial bodies without adequate counselling or explanation, the justice system – despite its rehabilitative intent – may inadvertently contribute to emotional trauma. Such findings reinforce the need for a more nuanced approach within Juvenile Justice mechanisms, one that distinguishes between children in conflict with law and those who are incidentally affected by adult disputes.
NCRB Data and the Invisibilisation of Incidentally Involved Children
Official crime statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) provide detailed data on children in conflict with law and crimes committed against children. For instance, the Crime in India report records thousands of cases each year involving juveniles accused of offences, as well as a significant number of crimes against children. These figures reflect a steady and continuing interaction between children and the criminal justice system.
Limitations of Existing Categorisation
However, NCRB data primarily categorises children either as offenders or as victims of crime. It does not separately identify children who come into contact with judicial processes due to family-based disputes, such as criminal complaints filed against parents or guardians, where the child is neither accused nor a victim in the strict legal sense. As a result, children who are incidentally involved in legal proceedings remain statistically invisible within official records.
Policy and Justice System Implications
This absence of disaggregated data has important implications. Without formal recognition in crime statistics, the emotional and psychological impact of legal exposure on such children remains largely unacknowledged in policy discourse. Observations from the Juvenile Justice Board visit further highlight this gap, where children with no direct involvement in any offence were nonetheless required to attend proceedings, underscoring the need for a more comprehensive and child-sensitive approach to justice. This gap does not indicate the absence of such children within the justice system, but rather reflects the limitation of existing data framework in capturing all forms of children’s legal exposure.
Key Psychological and Social Effects Identified
- Anxiety disorder
- Sleep disturbances
- Behavioral regression
- Difficulties in academic performance
- Misplaced guilt and fear of authority
- Emotional trauma due to repeated legal exposure
Overview of NCRB Data Coverage
| Category Covered by NCRB | Description |
|---|---|
| Children in Conflict with Law | Juveniles accused of committing offences |
| Crimes Against Children | Children identified as victims of crime |
| Incidentally Involved Children | Not separately identified in NCRB data |
(National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2022, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.)
Legal Framework Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) establishes a child-centric legal framework aimed at safeguarding the rights, rehabilitation, and social reintegration of children. Guided by the principles of the best interest of the child (Section 3) and non-punitive, rehabilitative approach (Section 4), the Act consciously departs from a purely punitive model. It emphasizes care, reform, and child-friendly procedures over punishment, ensuring that children in conflict with law or in need of care and protection are treated with dignity and sensitivity.
Confidentiality and Protection of Identity
The Act specifically mandates confidentiality and protection of identity (Sections 13 and 14) for children, recognizing that exposure to formal legal processes can have long-term psychological consequences. While these provisions are critical for children formally in conflict with law, they may not fully address the vulnerabilities of children who are incidentally involved in legal proceedings due to family disputes, without any direct involvement in the alleged offense.
Role of the Juvenile Justice Board and Care Mechanisms
Section 15 of the Act provides for the role of the Juvenile Justice Board in handling cases of children in conflict with law, while Sections 31–32 address the care and protection mechanisms for children in need of care. However, the existing provisions do not explicitly distinguish between active involvement and incidental exposure, leaving a gap in safeguards for children who are inadvertently brought into proceedings due to disputes among adult family members.
- Lack of distinction between active involvement and incidental exposure
- Absence of tailored safeguards for indirectly affected children
- Risk of psychological harm due to repeated legal exposure
This gap underscores the need for early identification, counselling, and diversion measures to ensure that the protective intent of the law is not overshadowed by the psychological impact of repeated legal exposure.
Need for Child-Sensitive Implementation
By integrating procedural safeguards with child-sensitive interventions, the JJ Act has the potential to mitigate harm. Yet, practical implementation requires greater recognition of incidentally involved children to align legal practice fully with the Act’s foundational principles of care, dignity, and the best interest of the child.
The Existing Gap
Despite the child-centric philosophy underlying the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a significant gap persists in its practical application. The existing legal framework is primarily designed to address the needs of children who are formally categorised either as children in conflict with law or as children in need of care and protection.
(Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Sections 3, 4, 13–14.)
However, children who become involved in legal proceedings incidentally—particularly due to family disputes or criminal complaints against adult family members—do not fall neatly within these categories.
Impact on Incidentally Involved Children
As a result, such children often remain outside the immediate protective mechanisms of the law. While procedural compliance may be ensured, the emotional and psychological impact of repeated exposure to formal legal processes frequently goes unaddressed.
- No explicit statutory recognition
- Lack of official data and documentation
- Invisible experiences in policy discourse
The absence of explicit recognition of incidentally involved children within statutory provisions or official data further compounds this issue, rendering their experiences largely invisible in policy discourse.
Observations from the Juvenile Justice Board
Observations from the Juvenile Justice Board reveal that without early identification and a sensitive, child-focused approach, these children risk experiencing unnecessary distress and disruption to their daily lives. This gap between legislative intent and lived reality underscores the need for a more inclusive understanding of child vulnerability within the juvenile justice system.
| Aspect | Current Legal Position | Identified Gap |
|---|---|---|
| Categories of Children | Children in conflict with law; children in need of care | No category for incidentally involved children |
| Safeguards | Confidentiality and identity protection | Not tailored for indirect exposure |
| Policy Recognition | Based on formal legal status | Experiences remain undocumented |
Way Forward
Certain measures could strengthen the child-centric approach envisaged under the Juvenile Justice Act:
- Early assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board to identify children with no direct involvement
- Mandatory counselling at the initial stage to minimise psychological harm
- Diversion from formal proceedings wherever possible
- Greater sensitivity while dealing with cases arising out of family disputes
Such measures would ensure that the rehabilitative spirit of the law is preserved in practice.
Conclusion
This visit to the Juvenile Justice Board reinforced a crucial understanding: a truly child-centric justice system must extend beyond procedural safeguards. While protecting a child’s identity and ensuring confidentiality are essential, safeguarding a child’s mental and emotional well-being is equally vital. Children who are incidentally drawn into legal proceedings should not bear the burden of disputes they neither created nor fully understand.
The juvenile justice framework, guided by principles of rehabilitation and reform, must recognise that legal exposure itself can be a source of trauma for children. Without adequate safeguards, counselling, and early assessment, the protective intent of the law risks being overshadowed by the psychological impact of formal processes. Comparative practices from other jurisdictions further demonstrate that it is possible to minimise such harm through proactive, child-sensitive interventions.
Strengthening protections for incidentally involved children is not merely a matter of legal reform but a moral imperative. A justice system that aspires to protect childhood must ensure that no child is made to suffer silently within its processes. Recognising and addressing this overlooked category of children would mark a meaningful step towards aligning juvenile justice practice with its foundational principles of care, dignity, and the best interests of the child.
