A 14-year-old girl identified as Shweta (name changed) says she was raped by a 17-year-old neighbour, Rahul (name changed). The assault became known after Shweta’s mother discovered she was pregnant.
Police registered an FIR and produced Rahul before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) as a child in conflict with law; he was granted bail and the offence was treated as serious, with a summons trial ordered. Shweta underwent a medical termination of pregnancy, missed school and says she has since faced daily harassment and physical threats from Rahul, his family and friends; a police report in one instance was recorded as an NC and no action followed.
With the help of a Support Person, Shweta sought redress from the JJB. She and other child survivors recount a justice process that is opaque, intimidating and insensitive to victims. While the Juvenile Justice Act focuses extensively on rehabilitation and safeguards for children in conflict with law (CCL), it contains little guidance on protecting the dignity, participation and safety of child victims who must appear before the same boards.
By contrast, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and its jurisprudence emphasise preventing secondary victimisation. POCSO mandates child-friendly procedures: support persons, separate waiting areas, in-camera proceedings and shielding arrangements to avoid direct confrontation with the accused. According to the accounts, these protections frequently disappear when cases move to the JJB.
Victims report waiting in crowded corridors alongside the accused and their families, with no separate spaces or trauma-informed arrangements. Inside hearings, proceedings are often not in camera; defence teams sometimes include multiple junior lawyers during a child’s testimony.
Boards reportedly refuse to allow trusted adults or Support Persons to remain with the child while evidence is recorded, and do not use chambers or screens to shield victims from facing the CCL directly. Defence questioning can be aggressive, confusing and humiliating, and boards do not always intervene when inappropriate lines of questioning or insensitive remarks occur.
Adjournments are common. Boards often summon victims to record evidence and then adjourn on flimsy grounds without imposing costs, forcing children to lose school days, incur expenses and relive trauma repeatedly.
Documentation practices add to the distress: victims say they receive oral, last-minute notices from police instead of written summonses, and are denied access to case documents such as charge sheets, bail orders or judgements unless they navigate administrative hurdles and pay for certified copies. Officials justify this with a blanket claim of “confidentiality,” which advocates warn should not be used to exclude victims from meaningful participation.
Delay is another critical concern. Shweta’s case remains pending before the JJB five years after filing, despite the JJ Act’s requirement that inquiries be completed within four months. Advocates argue this undermines both the child’s recovery and the promise of a child-centred justice system.
