ABSTRACT
The protection of juveniles during police investigation represents a critical intersection of constitutional rights, criminal justice administration, and child welfare principles. This research paper examines the adequacy of legal protections afforded to juveniles during arrest, interrogation, and custody in India, analyzing the gaps between statutory provisions and ground realities. The study investigates constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination and torture as applied to juvenile suspects, evaluates the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and assesses procedural compliance in police stations. Through doctrinal analysis and examination of case law, this paper identifies systemic deficiencies in custodial treatment of juveniles, including inadequate legal representation, improper interrogation techniques, lack of specialized infrastructure, and insufficient training of law enforcement personnel. The research reveals that despite robust legislative frameworks, practical enforcement remains inconsistent, leading to violations of fundamental rights. The paper recommends comprehensive reforms including mandatory presence of child welfare experts during interrogation, establishment of separate juvenile custodial facilities, enhanced training programs for police personnel, strengthening of legal aid mechanisms, and implementation of strict accountability measures for procedural violations. These findings contribute to the broader discourse on juvenile justice reform and emphasize the urgent need for bridging the gap between legal provisions and their effective implementation to ensure genuine protection of juveniles in conflict with law.
Keywords: Juvenile Justice, Custodial Rights, Police Investigation, Constitutional Safeguards, Self-Incrimination, Interrogation Procedures
I. INTRODUCTION
The treatment of juveniles within the criminal justice system has emerged as a matter of paramount importance in contemporary legal discourse. Children in conflict with law occupy a vulnerable position, requiring special protection that recognizes their developmental immaturity, susceptibility to coercion, and potential for rehabilitation. The custodial phase of police investigation represents a particularly critical juncture where the rights of juvenile suspects are most susceptible to violation.
India’s commitment to protecting children’s rights finds expression in its Constitution, international treaty obligations, and specialized legislation. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted expansively to include protection against custodial violence and degrading treatment. Article 20(3) provides explicit protection against self-incrimination, a safeguard of particular relevance to juveniles who may be manipulated or coerced during interrogation. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 represents the legislative framework specifically designed to ensure age-appropriate treatment of children throughout the justice process.
However, a significant disjuncture exists between these normative provisions and their practical implementation. Police stations across the country frequently lack the infrastructure, training, and procedural awareness necessary to ensure rights-compliant treatment of juvenile suspects. Interrogation techniques developed for adult offenders are inappropriately applied to children. Legal representation often materializes too late to prevent procedural irregularities. Custodial facilities fail to maintain the separation between juveniles and adults mandated by law.
This research paper undertakes a comprehensive examination of the legal protections afforded to juveniles during police investigation in India. It analyzes the constitutional and statutory framework, evaluates implementation challenges, examines judicial interventions, and proposes reforms to strengthen procedural safeguards. The central research question addresses whether existing legal mechanisms provide adequate protection to juveniles during the custodial phase of investigation, and if not, what systemic reforms are necessary to bridge the gap between law and practice.