Does the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 Uphold Its Rehabilitative Spirit?

An Exploratory Study of Observation Homes for Children in Conflict with the Law in Karnataka

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, which replaced the earlier law from 2000, adopts a reformative and rehabilitative approach, at least in letter. After a decade of its implementation, to examine whether the spirit of this Act is upheld when it comes to observation homes for children in conflict with the law, the Juvenile Justice Clinic at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, conducted a comprehensive state-wide audit in Karnataka, which is, to our knowledge, the first of its kind.

An observation home^[1] in India is established as a temporary place of stay for children in conflict with the law. The framework for granting bail to children in conflict with the law is more lenient in the 2015 Act, in line with its more reformative and rehabilitative approach. When a child is alleged to have committed an offence, the Special Juvenile Police Unit,^[2] a specialised unit trained to deal with vulnerable children, may apprehend the child (only if it is in the best interest of the child) and produce them in front of the Juvenile Justice Board within 24 hours for bail.^[3] Section 12 of the Act allows for denial of bail for a child in conflict with the law, only if granting bail is not in the best interest of the child or if it defeats the ends of justice. If bail is not granted, the child is placed in an observation home.

Emphasising that under no circumstances should such children be incarcerated in jails, the 2015 Act mandates the establishment of observation homes in every district or a group of districts.^[4] Chapter Seven of the Act outlines clear guidelines on requirements that need to be met by every observation home for the effective rehabilitation and social reintegration of these children.

In order to strengthen the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act, state-wise Model Rules^[5] are framed, detailing requirements regarding physical infrastructure, basic facilities such as clothing and bedding, access to medical aid and mental health services, sanitation and hygiene requirements, and education opportunities that must be available and accessible to children during their stay at the home.^[6] The Model Rules also cover protocols for staffing, age-wise segregation, provisions for children with mental and physical challenges, grievance redressal mechanisms,^[7] and so on.

This article explores the findings of an audit study conducted by the Juvenile Justice Clinic in the 17 observation homes in existence in Karnataka between 2022 and 2024. Social audits are regularly used as a tool to evaluate childcare institutions and hold them accountable for any lapses in the effective implementation of the law.^[8] Recent studies on the juvenile justice system by the India Justice Report and Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the University of Mysore provide valuable insights into the nature of childcare institutions in the country (drawing primarily on RTI responses and secondary research).

However, the Juvenile Justice Clinic’s audit study stands apart in its scope and depth, as it is the only study to undertake a comprehensive audit across all 17 observation homes in Karnataka using empirical research methods. The study seeks to not only map the effectiveness of institutional functioning and compliance with statutory provisions but also evaluate whether the Act is implemented in a manner that upholds its reformative and rehabilitative spirit. Furthermore, it attempts to address critical questions regarding the nature of support required for a child and their family to navigate the juvenile justice system. The clinic continues to provide legal and psychosocial support to children housed in the observation home in Bengaluru and build capacities of stakeholders in the juvenile justice system in collaboration with the judiciary and government actors.

For the purpose of the audit, the list of mandated requirements mentioned in the Act and the Karnataka State Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules (henceforth, the Rules) were divided into five thematic categories: (1) safe and secure infrastructure, (2) health and hygiene, (3) human resources and monitoring, (4) child participation and recreational activities, and (5) education and rehabilitation. The data was documented in both quantitative (homes that have the prescribed facilities) and qualitative (reasons for the absence of facilities) forms. In each of the 17 observation homes in the state, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the staff in charge and focus group discussions with the children residing there. Where available, we also reviewed records and documents. The observations presented here evaluate the study’s findings against the spirit of the Act, structuring them around the thematic categories identified above. 

Findings

Fulfilling basic needs versus upholding the spirit of rehabilitation

The primary focus of the juvenile justice system appears to be on meeting the basic needs of the children, such as food, clothing, and shelter, whereas areas such as mental health, education, vocational training, child participation, and follow-up/rehabilitation are largely neglected. Although the Rules mandate that rooms have to be well-lit and spacious,^[9] many of the observation homes, especially in smaller districts, operate out of rented buildings, which are cramped and dilapidated. The children are expected to conduct most of their daily activities, including eating, sleeping, and classes in one room. These buildings also do not have open spaces for physical activity, compromising the physical and mental health of the children.

Numerous studies have found that children who come in conflict with the law are from socially and economically marginalised backgrounds. Consequently, the attitude of stakeholders within the system is often dismissive of a child’s overall well-being and rehabilitative needs. During interviews, several staff members expressed that children should be grateful for the facilities provided at the observation home, as they perceive it to be an improvement from what they receive in their family homes.

The persistent problem of inadequate staffing

Rule 36 (7)^[10] of the Rules prescribes a list of essential staff to be appointed at every Child Care Institute, including a full-time nurse and a mental health expert to provide regular check-ups and counselling for the children. However, according to the audit report, most of the observation homes did not fulfil this provision. Apart from the superintendent in charge and the probation officer, most of the staff are outsourced from an external agency, which often retains part of their salary as commission.

Factors such as insufficient salary, delays in payment, and lack of sensitisation and training for staff contribute to low motivation among them. This often leads to the staff displacing their frustrations onto the children residing at the homes, as was study.

No principle of participation

Of the 16 general principles provided in Chapter Two of the Act,^[11] the most neglected and ignored is the principle of participation. This principle emphasises the right of the child to participate in processes and decisions related to their case and rehabilitation. Focus group discussions with children indicated that most of them were unaware of their rights, the status of their cases, the charges filed against them, and complaint redressal mechanisms available to them, and were mostly excluded from participating in their own rehabilitation process. Furthermore, none of the observation homes had any record of establishing or operating children’s committees,^[12] which are intended to provide children with a platform to discuss their rights and protections and to address grievances.

Reformative or punitive homes?

Owing to the temporary nature of the stay at observation homes, the system does not prioritise educational and vocational training for the children. At the time of the audit, none of the homes had a full-time teacher. A few NGOs have attempted to fill this gap by conducting life skills training classes at the observation homes. Similarly, because of shortage of staff and apathy of the stakeholders towards the children, there is virtually no follow-up once the children leave the observation home. The ‘individual care plan’^[13]—a critical document to be completed by the probation officer to ensure effective rehabilitation of the child—was not prepared at any of the homes. The absence of follow-ups and adequate rehabilitation and reintegration often lead to recidivism—yet the blame is placed on the child, who is seen as a habitual offender and further targeted by the police.

The children within these systems

Ravi (name changed), like 37 per cent of the children who enter the Juvenile Justice System,^[14] comes from a single-parent household with no family support and unstable income. He joined a criminally inclined street gang at the age of 14 and has been charged in more than 15 petty and serious cases in the last 3 years. Ravi’s mother shared that every time he returns after a stay in the observation home, the gang quickly draws him back in. His mother does not have the financial means to care for him, and Ravi ends up back in the system repeatedly. Ravi, who is now almost 18 years old, is currently at an observation home.

The above case study clearly demonstrates the consequences for children like Ravi who are not provided with meaningful rehabilitation and sustained support—trapping them in recurring cycles within the system and ultimately leading to their incarceration in adult prisons once they turn 18.

Conclusion

While the Juvenile Justice Act recognises that the majority of the children who enter the system come from socio-economically marginalised communities, religious minorities, and backward classes, its implementation leaves much to be desired. The Rules clearly state that a child may be apprehended and placed in an observation home only for heinous crimes and only if it is in the best interest of the child.^[15] However, despite such provisions in the Act and Rules, the study that many children are apprehended by the police for serious as well as petty crimes. The observation home, in order to align with the reformative and rehabilitative spirit of the Act, is mandated to provide effective counselling, education, and life skills training to the children. However, in practice, these services are often not provided.

There is an immediate need for the Juvenile Justice Committee in Karnataka, as well as all other state-level committees constituted by the respective high courts, to closely examine and evaluate the establishment and functioning of observation homes. Additionally, the committees should institute a taskforce composed of stakeholders from the government, judiciary, and civil society organisations to monitor, identify, and address gaps in the implementation of the Act and Model Rules, and to ensure that the rights of the children in conflict with the law are safeguarded.

The NLSIU Juvenile Justice Clinic’s full audit report, titled Observation Homes in Karnataka — Audit Report, may be found here.

^[1] See also Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 2(21).

^[2] See (n 1), s 2(55).

^[3] (n 1), s 53.

^[4]  Sheela Barse (II) v Union of India MANU/SC/0115/1986 [5], [6].

^[5] Karnataka State Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2025.

^[6] (n 5), r 39–48.

^[7] (n 5), r 6(vi).

^[8] Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case Dinesh Batham v State of Madhya Pradesh (Misc Civil Case No. 4014 of 2024).

^[9] (n 5), r 41 (viii).

^[10] (n 5).

^[11] (n 1), Chapter II, s 3 (iii).

^[12] (n 1), s 53.

^[13] (n 1), s 8 (h).

^[14] Derived from baseline data collected by the Juvenile Justice Clinic, NLSIU, between March 2022 and May 2025, involving 580 children in conflict with the law. This data was published by The Hindu on September 30, 2025

^[15] (n 5) Chapter III, r 7.