Prayagraj: In a significant development that exposes a massive systemic vacuum in Uttar Pradesh’s child welfare system, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is being "effectively frustrated" in the state.

A Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot expressed deep concern after the State Government admitted that it has almost no infrastructure or identified personnel to implement the Rehabilitation and Reintegration (R&R) programmes mandated by law for children in conflict with the law.

The matter came to light during the hearing of a criminal appeal filed by a juvenile (referred to as 'X') seeking bail. While considering the bail plea, the Court looked into the mandatory requirement of a "Rehabilitation and Reintegration" (R&R) plan. Under the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, once a minor is released on bail, the state must ensure they don't fall back into the world of crime.

This support system relies on four critical pillars:

Fit Persons: Individuals recognized by the board to take care of a child.
Fit Institutions: Facilities recognized to provide care and rehabilitation.
Group Foster Care: Small groups where children can live in a family-like environment.
Case Workers: Professionals who track the child’s progress and education.

Shockingly, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Court that there is no information regarding the availability of these recognized entities for the entire state.

Justice Ajay Bhanot was sharp in his criticism. He noted that without these institutions, the legislative intent of "restorative justice"—which aims to reform a child rather than just punish them—is completely lost.

"This deficiency effectively frustrates the beneficent intent of the JJ Act, 2015 read with JJ Rules, 2016 and violates the rights of a most vulnerable section of society namely children in conflict with law," the Bench observed.

The Court pointed out that if there are no "fit persons" to mentor a child or "fit institutions" to house them, the Court’s role becomes merely "adjudicatory" (just passing orders) instead of being "reformative." In simpler terms, the law exists on paper, but the machinery to run it is missing on the ground in districts like Kasganj and Mainpuri.

Recognizing that education is the most powerful tool for rehabilitation, the High Court has proposed a creative solution. Justice Bhanot observed that, prima facie, schools and teachers could be the best candidates to be designated as "fit institutions" and "fit persons."

Since schools already have the infrastructure for learning and teachers possess the skills to mentor young minds, the Court suggested they could play a formal role in the JJ Act framework.

The Court has directed Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi to file a comprehensive affidavit addressing ten crucial points. These include:

Criteria for Recognition: How is the state deciding who is a "fit person" or what is a "fit institution"?
Identification: Details of any such entities currently recognized in UP.
Role of Schools: Can schools and teachers be formally designated as rehabilitation partners?
Incentives: Is the state willing to give funds or incentives to schools to upgrade their facilities for this purpose?
NGO Participation: How can civil society, volunteer groups, and professionals be brought into the fold?
Curriculum: Is there a special educational plan (pedagogy) for children who have had a brush with the law?
Collaboration: Can bodies like NCERT, SCERT, and Universities help develop this special curriculum?
Training: How will teachers be trained to handle the psychological needs of these children?
Institutional Synergy: A plan for collaboration between various educational boards and the state.
Inter-Departmental Coordination: How will departments like Women and Child Development, Education, Health, Police, and Law work together?

The High Court has signaled that this is not just a legal issue but a social one. It has ordered the State Government to hold a high-level conference involving the Additional Chief Secretaries of all relevant departments—including Education, Social Welfare, and Health—to come up with a "unified stand."

Furthermore, the District Probation Officers (DPO) and District Inspectors of Schools (DIOS) of Kasganj and Mainpuri have been summoned to appear before the Court on February 12, 2026, to assist in finalizing a concrete rehabilitation plan for the minor in the current case.

The Allahabad High Court’s intervention is a wake-up call for the Uttar Pradesh administration. For years, the JJ Act has been hailed as a progressive piece of legislation, but this case proves that without "fit persons" and proper "care plans," the promise of a second chance for children remains an empty slogan. The Court's move to involve schools and teachers might just be the structural reform the state needs to turn "restorative justice" into a reality.

Case Title: Juvenile X v. State of U.P.

Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot

Next Date of Hearing: February 12, 2026