‘Nothing Exists on Ground’: Allahabad High Court on Absence of Juvenile Rehab Infrastructure in UP

The Allahabad High Court recently pointed out that Uttar Pradesh lacks even the most basic institutional framework required to rehabilitate children in conflict with law, observing that the absence of recognised agencies under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) has reduced courts to performing only an adjudicatory role.

Court directed the State government to file a comprehensive affidavit explaining the steps taken to identify and recognise “fit institutions,” “fit persons,” group foster care institutions, foster care givers and case workers under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) and Rules. It asked the State to clarify whether such institutions exist anywhere in Uttar Pradesh, examine the feasibility of involving schools and teachers in implementing rehabilitation plans, and place on record proposals for inter-departmental coordination to operationalise post-release rehabilitation and reintegration programmes for children in conflict with law

Hearing a criminal appeal filed by a juvenile who had already been granted interim bail, court was examining the feasibility of implementing a Rehabilitation and Reintegration (R & R) programme, also referred to as an individual child care plan, for the juvenile after his release from an observation home.

During the course of the hearing, however, it emerged that the statutory framework required to execute such programmes was virtually non-existent on the ground.

Justice Ajay Bhanot noted that courts under the JJ Act are not meant to perform merely adjudicatory functions. Instead, the statute casts a clear obligation on the justice system to ensure rehabilitation and reintegration of children through structured post-release programmes.

The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, was unable to provide concrete instructions regarding the availability of “fit institutions,” “fit persons,” “group foster care institutions,” “group foster care givers,” and “case workers” as contemplated under the JJ Act and the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2016, particularly in Kasganj and Mainpuri districts.

Faced with the lack of clarity, court directed the District Probation Officers of Kasganj and Mainpuri to appear in person. Both officers informed the court that no such institutions or individuals had been identified or recognised in their respective districts. A District Probation Officer from Prayagraj also appeared as a representative of the Department of Women and Child Development.

Recording these submissions, court observed that in the absence of recognised agencies, the R & R programme could not be executed at all.

Justice Bhanot noted that without effective implementation of rehabilitation measures, court’s role was reduced to a purely adjudicatory exercise, thereby negating the legislative intent behind the JJ Act.

Court underlined that post-release rehabilitation is the most significant component of restorative justice envisaged under the statute. It pointed out that education formed the cornerstone of the individual child care plans being considered in the present case and a connected bail matter. The failure to operationalise rehabilitation mechanisms, court said, amounted to a violation of the rights of children in conflict with law, who constitute one of the most vulnerable sections of society.

Taking a prima facie view, the high court observed that such statutory institutions appeared to be missing not just in the concerned districts but possibly across the State, thereby rendering the beneficial provisions of the JJ Act ineffective.

At the State’s request, court granted time to file a detailed affidavit addressing a wide range of issues. These include the steps taken to determine criteria for recognising fit institutions and personnel, the current availability of such agencies, and the feasibility of involving schools and teachers as part of the rehabilitation framework, particularly for fulfilling the educational mandate of child care plans.

Court also asked the State to examine the possibility of providing incentives to educational institutions and teachers, collaborating with bodies such as SCERT, NCERT and universities, developing specialised curricula for children in conflict with law, and ensuring structured training programmes for mentors and case workers.

Emphasising the need for coordinated governance, court directed that the affidavit must reflect inter-departmental consensus involving education, social welfare, skill development, health, police, and law departments.

The matter has been listed on February 12, 2026, with directions for the District Probation Officers and District Inspectors of Schools of Kasganj and Mainpuri to remain present to assist the court in finalising the rehabilitation and reintegration plan.

Case Title: X Minor vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Order Date: January 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot