Welcome to the official blog of the Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates, where we are dedicated to providing litigation support services for matters related to the Juvenile Justice Act. In today’s blog post, we aim to shed light on the prevailing issues surrounding the Juvenile Justice Act, the legal framework for their protection, and the steps we can take as a society to combat these acts. Join us as we explore this critical subject and empower you with the knowledge to protect your rights and safety.

Society must be aware and vigilant about the protection of its children because children are the future of the country, and ignoring them could have serious consequences. The Legislature of our country has enacted several statutes to deal with Children in Conflict with the law and to provide protection to vulnerable children. Through the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, India has also provided a secular law for the adoption of children. In this article, we will discuss the landmark judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject of Juvenile Justice and the Protection of Children.

1. Sheela Barse & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [1986 AIR 1773]

In this petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the release of children below 16 years of age from jails and the necessity of information about children in jails, the existence of juvenile courts, homes, and schools. The court directed:

  • State Legal Aid & Advice Board to provide legal assistance to children below 16 years in prisons.
  • State Governments to report the number of children’s homes and inmates in these institutions.
  • Strict enforcement of the ‘Children’s Act’ and filing of affidavits explaining non-compliance.
  • District and Sessions Judges to oversee child prisoners’ welfare.

2. Sheela Barse & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1986 SCALE (2) 230]

This case introduced key directions regarding juveniles, including completing investigations and trials within specified timeframes and preventing the lodging of children in jails. The court recommended the establishment of remand and observation homes by State Governments and actions by the Union Government.

3. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

The court clarified that juvenility is reckoned from the date of the offense, not from the date of Magistrate’s cognizance.

4. Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2009 SCC 13 211]

This case tackled the age limit for male juveniles. The court clarified that all individuals below 18 years at the time of the offense are treated as juveniles, even if the claim is raised after the age of 18.

5. Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. [Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2003]

The court emphasized that the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after final case disposal. It’s a beneficial legislation, and a technical plea cannot disqualify someone from making a claim. However, the burden of proof rests with the claimant.

6. Sampurna Behura v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 of 2005]

The court discussed the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It provided directions for ensuring the well-being of children, including filling vacancies, collaboration with NGOs, establishing special police units, and more.

7. Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2006]

The court clarified that the claim of juvenility can be raised even after the final disposal of a case. It emphasized that a hyper-technical approach should not be taken in rejecting such claims.

8. Anjum Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra, Through STF, CBI Mumbai [Criminal Appeal No. 1178 of 2007]

The court discussed whether the JJ Act of 2000 prevails over TADA Act, 1987. It clarified that the JJ Act, 2000 would not have an overriding effect on TADA as it aimed to override laws in force when enacted.

9. Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal no. 1209 of 2010]

The court emphasized the use of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for determining a child’s age, both for offenders and victims.

10. Salil Bali v. Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2013]

The court discussed the age limit of 18 years defined in the JJ Act, 2000 and clarified the rationale behind this age limit.

11. Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 470 of 2005]

The court refrained from declaring the right to adopt and the right to be adopted as fundamental rights encompassed by Article 21 due to conflicting viewpoints in the country.

12. Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Ors. v. Raju Thr. Member Juvenile Justice Board & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 2014]

The court discussed the notion of reading down provisions of the JJ Act, 2000, and ruled that there is no need to do so as the Act’s provisions are clear and comprehensive.

13. Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian – Smt. Rajni Bhati versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2016)

The court ruled that submission of documents as evidence of juvenility is conclusive proof of the accused’s age, and inquiry for age determination can be initiated if there is doubt.


These landmark judgments have played a significant role in shaping the law on Juvenile Justice and Child Rights in India. It is now crucial to ensure the proper implementation of these laws to protect the rights and welfare of children in conflict with the law. As Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt has emphasized, the true equity and justice of society can be measured by how fairly it treats its children.

We are a law firm in the name and style of Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates at Gurugram and Rewari. We are providing litigation support services for matters related to the Juvenile Justice Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.