Representational image only. File
More than half (55%) of the cases before 362 Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) remained pending as of October 31, 2023, also while 92% of 765 districts in India have constituted JJBs, the authority dealing with Children in Conflict with Law, the pendency rate varies widely, from 83% in Odisha to 35% in Karnataka, noted a first-of-its-kind study ‘Juvenile Justice and Children in Conflict with the Law: A Study of Capacity at the Frontlines’, by the India Justice Report (IJR) released on Thursday (November 20, 2025).
Unlike the National Judicial Data Grid, there is no Central and public repository of information on JJBs. For the study, the IJR filed more than 250 RTI requests and responses from 21 States, revealing that as of October 31, 2023, JJBs had only disposed of less than half the 1,00,904 cases.
Probation must be pillar of juvenile justice, say experts
Additionally, vacancies in the juvenile justice system (24% of the JJBs were not fully constituted), and inadequate legal aid (30% JJBs do not have an attached legal services clinic) have led to high workload in crucial functions.
On an average, 154 cases remained pending with each JJB annually. Additionally, inadequate data monitoring and funds have created severe constraints in the implementation of juvenile justice.
According to 2023 Crime in India data, 40,036 juveniles were apprehended in 31,365 cases under the Indian Penal Code and Special and Local Laws in India. More than three in four of the children involved were between 16 and 18 years of age.
Explained | How can a juvenile be tried as an adult in Court?
In a decade since the passing of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, the IJR study finds that the decentralised architecture meant to deliver child-centric services suffers from systemic gaps, including a lack of inter-agency coordination and data-sharing.
The IJR study framed 16 questions on the capacity of the juvenile justice system to four nodal agencies i.e., State police headquarters, the Department of Women and Child Development, State Child Protection Society (SCPS) and the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA).
More than 500 responses were received from 28 States and two UTs, covering 530 districts. Of these 500 responses, 11% were rejected outright, 24% received no reply at all, 29% were transferred to districts, and 36% were provided by State nodal authorities, indicating a weak culture of public data transfer and transparency.
Maja Daruwala, chief editor, India Justice Report, said: “The specially designed juvenile justice system is pyramidal in structure. Its optimal functioning relies on information flowing regularly from first responders at individual institutions such as police stations and care institutions upwards into overseeing authorities at the district, State, and national level. Yet, the IJR’s efforts at accessing reliable data from across the board evidence that authorised oversight bodies neither receive it routinely nor insist on it. Scattered and irregular data makes supervision episodic and accountability hollow.”
Added Justice Madan B. Lokur, former Judge, Supreme Court of India: “IJR’s study exposes the gaps in our Juvenile Justice system. Despite the passage of 10 years since the implementation of the JJ Act, 2015, it is worrying to find that a quarter of JJBs did not have a full Bench and evidence of a substantial number of staff vacancies in child care institutions. This has a detrimental effect on children who fall under its purview.’’ He further said the inadequate and patchy data from RTIs is concerning.
“It is essential that a child-centric National Data Grid integrates information on the functioning of the juvenile justice system and that all authorities involved regularly publish standardised data about their functioning in relation to children. Until the information spine is built and used, the system cannot truly serve the best interests of the child,” he added.
Published – November 20, 2025 12:46 pm IST
