1

Meaning of Probation
The term Probation is derived from the Latin word probare, which means to test
or to prove. It is a treatment device, developed as a non-custodial alternative that
is used by the magistracy where guilt is established but it is considered that
imposing of a prison sentence would do no good. Imprisonment decreases the
convict’s capacity to readjust to the normal society after the release and
association with professional delinquents often has undesired effects.
Probation is an alternative to imprisonment, and is considered the most viable
sentencing option for juveniles, young offenders, first time and petty offenders
and even repeat offenders. The purpose of probation is a reform of the offender
by means that are alternative to punishment such as admonition, constructive
treatment, conditions of good conduct, and supervision rather than punishment
and incarceration, by which, offenders, instead of being sent to jail, are put under
the care of a Probation Officer by the Court, thus saving them from stigma and
influence of hardened criminals. While infliction of punishment has as its objective
the suffering of the offender, probation is intended at reformation and re-
socialisation in line with the reform of the penal system. It is guided by the belief
that many offenders are not dangerous criminals but have acted in misfortune,
improvidence, misguidance, and have landed in conflict with law.

Definition of Probation
1.The method used to deal with first time offenders, or those guilty of minor
crimes, by allowing them to remain in the community as long as conditions are
followed.
2.The state of having been conditionally released from custody.

What is Probation
Probation is a sentence handed down to criminal offenders that allows them to
remain out of jail, under supervision, as long as certain specific guidelines are
followed. When an offender is sentenced to probation, he must meet with an
 2

assigned probation officer on a regular basis, and must obey the conditions
specified by the court. If the offender fails to adhere to the conditions, he risks
being charged with violation of probation, and sent to jail.

History of Probation
Probation dates back to English common law, when the court had the authority to
suspend an execution, while a convicted criminal appealed to the monarch for
a pardon. In the United States, probation developed in 1841 when a Boston
cobbler, named John Augustus, convinced a judge in the Boston Police Court to
release a convicted offender to his care for a short time, with the goal of
presenting the offender rehabilitated to the court in time for sentencing.
The first probation officer was recognized by U.S. courts in 1878, when the
Mayor of Boston appointed a former police officer to the position. In the early
20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court determined a problem with allowing judges
to suspend sentences indefinitely. As a result, the National Probation Act of 1925
came into being. The Act allowed courts to suspend sentences of incarceration,
placing offenders on supervised probation for a specified period of time. The U.S.
Federal Probation Service was established that same year.

Probation Conditions
Probation conditions vary greatly depending on the jurisdiction, and by the
offense of which the individual was convicted. Probation conditions also depend
on whether probation is court-supervised (“informal probation”), or probation
officer-supervised (“formal probation”).
Conditions for informal probation are often set by the judge, who has broad
discretion in setting conditions. Most judges refer to statutory probation
guidelines in setting conditions, however. Conditions for formal probation are set
by the probation officer, using state and federal guidelines, though the judge may
have input.
Common standard probation conditions include:
▪ Payment of restitution and/or fines
▪ Completing community service is ordered
▪ Meeting with probation officer at scheduled times
▪ Appearing in court as ordered
▪ Submitting to random drug testing
▪ Submitting to searches without a warrant
▪ Avoiding places and people associated with criminal acts
▪ Avoiding committing any crime, whether a felony or a misdemeanor
Common special probation conditions include:
 3

▪ Compliance with a house arrest program

▪ Attending drug or alcohol treatment programs
▪ Regular payment of all court-ordered child support or other family
support obligations
▪ Registering as a sex offender if required

Difference Between Probation and Parole

While both probation and parole offer supervision for individuals convicted of a
crime, there are some basic differences. While probation is a sentence used in
place of jail time, often used for first time and non-violent offenders, parole is
supervised release of an individual who has already served jail or prison time.
Both probation and parole have the goal of rehabilitating offenders, and of
keeping them out of jail or prison. In both cases, the offender is required to follow
strict conditions, and to report on a regular basis to their assigned parole or
probation officer. Probation is a sentence issued by the judge at trial. Parole may
be granted only after a minimum amount of time in jail or prison has been served,
and is granted at the discretion of the parole board.

Types of Probation
There are several types of probation that may be ordered for an offender. While
probation is assigned with the goal of rehabilitating offenders, the judge may
assign different types to suit each situation. The most commonly ordered types of
probation include:
▪ Unsupervised Probation – frees the offender from the direct
supervision of a probation officer, while still requiring him to obey a
specific court ordered condition. This is often reserved for less serious,
non-violent crimes.
▪ Supervised Probation –requires the offender to check in with a
probation officer on a regular basis. This can range from weekly to
monthly personal visits to mail reports, or phone calls.
▪ Community Control Probation – requires the offender to remain in his
home, his whereabouts monitored by an ankle tracking device. In
some cases, the offender is allowed to leave the home to attend work
or school.
▪ Shock Probation – This consists of a defendant being sentenced to jail
or prison for a short time. After the time period ends, the judge
releases the defendant on probation. This is done in order to “shock”
the defendant into following probation conditions.
 4

▪ Crime-Specific Probation – allows the judge to order specific

conditions in order to help ensure the offender does not repeat the
same crime. Possible crime-specific conditions may include
attendance at a drug or alcohol rehabilitation, a prohibition against
owning a computer or smartphone, or to go online, or to register as a
sex offender.

Probation Officers
Probation officers work directly with offenders in order to supervise them, and to
prevent them from committing additional crimes. Probation officers often work
with dangerous criminals as they are assigned to field work, in which they
frequently have to visit offenders at their homes or places of employment.
Probation officers meet with their assigned offenders in order to keep up to date
with their rehabilitation progress, and to determine whether or not the offenders
are adhering to the conditions of their probation.

Federal Probation
Federal probation is a sentence only for offenders who commit federal offenses.
The Office of Probation and Pretrial Services monitors federal probation,
administering supervised release and probation according to federal laws.
Federal probation officers have jurisdiction over federal felons, and they work to
determine the risk to society of allowing an offender to remain free on probation,
and to enforce conditions of probation. They also work closely with the courts in
order to rehabilitate offenders.

Probation Violation
When a person commits an offense that violates the terms or conditions of his
probation, it is considered a probation violation. The exact consequences for a
probation violation vary depending on several factors, including the nature of the
violation and the seriousness of the offense. Whether the offender has prior
violations, and other circumstances may also play a part in the punishment.
When probation is violated, an offender faces significant penalties, which may
including serving out his original sentence behind bars.

Types of Probation Violation

State and federal laws govern probation violations and there are a number of
ways in which probation can be violated. In general, the commission of any
crime, regardless how minor, is considered a violation of probation. Failure to
follow the terms and conditions of probation, exactly as they are specified, also
 5

constitutes a violation, even if the act is not considered a crime under other
circumstances.
The most common types of probation violation include:
▪ Failure to appear in court as ordered
▪ Failure to report to, or meet with, an appointed probation officer as
scheduled
▪ Failure to pay fines or restitution, or failure to carry out community
service as ordered
▪ Associating with other offenders
▪ Traveling out of the county or state without permission from the court
or the probation officer
▪ Possessing, using, or selling drugs
▪ Being arrested for any reason

Consequences of Probation Violation

It is usually left up to the probation officer what will happen next. The officer may
choose to issue a warning, or may require the violator to appear in court for a
probation violation hearing. Typically, the officer considers the severity of the
offense, and whether the offender has committed other violations, when
determining the next course of action.
It is during such a hearing that a judge will consider evidence of the violation,
presented by the prosecuting attorney. The probation officer then makes a
recommendation as to how the violation should be handled. While the judge has
broad discretion in imposing a sentence on a probation violation, it is common for
the court to heavily consider the recommendation of the probation officer.

Probation Cases
Probation is an option used by courts across the country every day, both to stem
prison populations, and to allow offenders an opportunity to make changes in
their lives that will keep them out of trouble.
Plea Bargain, Suspended Sentence, and Probation
On June 22, 2015, Thomas McPartlen and William Gartrell became involved in
an altercation. During the fight, McPartlen cut Gartrell with a six-inch steak knife
leaving several superficial wounds. McPartlen was arrested immediately for
Second-degree Assault and Armed Criminal Action. The next month, McPartlen
entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors, who agreed to reduce the
charges to a misdemeanor assault, if he pled guilty.
According to the plea agreement, McPartlen would be sentenced to one year in
jail, with a suspended sentence, and two years’ probation. The conditions also
 6

specified that McPartlen would be required to complete an Alternatives to

Violence Program. If he fails to successfully complete the program, or if he
violates his probation, he will be required to serve out his jail term.

Law of Probation in India

The earliest provision to have dealt with probation was section S.562 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1898. After amendment in 1974 it stands as S.360 of The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974. It reads as follows:-

'When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence
punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less,
or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of
an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous
conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which
he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the
offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is
expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the
Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he
be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and
receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three
years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of
good behaviour'.

S.361 makes it mandatory for the judge to declare the reasons for not awarding
the benefit of probation. The object of probation has been laid down in the
judgment of Justice Horwill in In re B. Titus:

S. 562 is intended to be used to prevent young persons from being committed to

jail, where they may associate with hardened criminals, who may lead them
further along the path of crime, and to help even men of mature years who for the
first time may have committed crimes through ignorance or inadvertence or the
bad influence of others and who, but for such lapses, might be expected to make
good citizens. In such cases, a term of imprisonment may have the very opposite
effect to that for which it was intended. Such persons would be sufficiently
punished by the shame of having committed a crime and by the mental agony
and disgrace that a trial in a criminal court would involve.

The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is based on the concept that young
offenders can be saved from becoming habitual offenders by treating them
amicably and providing them with a chance to reform rather than dumping them
into jails. The probation officer insists on the problem or need of the offender and
 7

tries to solve his problem and sees to it that the offender becomes a useful
citizen of the society.
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and S.360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 exclude the application of the Code where the Act is applied.
The Code also gives way to state legislation wherever they have been enacted.

Objectives and Benefits of Probation

The object of S.360 CrPC is to prevent young persons from being committed to
jail, where they may associate with hardened criminals, who may lead them
further along the path of crime, and to help even men of more mature years who
for the first time may have committed crimes through ignorance, or inadvertence
or the bad influence of others and who, but for such lapses, might be expected to
be good citizens. It is not intended that this section should be applied to
experienced men of the world who deliberately flout the law and commit
offences.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court In Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar’, explained
the rationale of the provision:
“The object of the provision is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into
obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of
mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo
imprisonment in jail.”
While dealing with this Act, the three most important provisions that need to be
highlighted are sections 3, 4 and 6.
Probation keeps the offender away from the criminal world. Further, the fear of
punishment in case of violation of probation law has a psychological effect on the
offender. It deters him from law breaking during the period of probation. Thus
probation indirectly prevents an offender from adopting a revengeful attitude
towards the society. Moreover, sentencing an offender to a term of imprisonment
caries with it a stigma, which makes his rehabilitation in society difficult. The
release of the offender on probation saves him from stigmatization and thus
prepares him for an upright living. The shame of going through a trial process
would have sufficiently chastised him
Probation seeks to socialize the criminal, by training him to take up an earning
activity and thus enables him to pick up those life-habits, which are necessary for
a law-abiding member of the community. This inculcates a sense of self-
sufficiency, self-control and self-confidence in him, which are undoubtedly the
essential attributes of a free-life. The Probation Officer would guide the offender
 8

to rehabilitate himself and also try and wean him away from such criminal
tendencies.
Before the implementation of probation law, the courts were often confronted with
the problem of disposing of the cases of persons who were charged with neglect
of their family. In such cases there was no alternative but to send them to prison,
which was an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer. With the introduction
of probation as a method of reformative justice, the courts can now admit such
offenders to probation where they are handled by the competent probation
officers who impress upon them the need to work industriously and avoid shirking
their family responsibilities.
Salient Features of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
The Probation of Offenders Act (Act No. 28 of 1958) contains elaborate
provisions relating to probation of offenders, which are made applicable
throughout the country. We will now observe the salient features of the Act:-
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is intended to reform the amateur
offenders by providing rehabilitation in society and to prevent the conversion of
youthful offenders into obdurate criminals under environmental influence by
keeping them in jails along with hardened criminals.
It aims to release first offenders, after due admonition or warning with advice,
who are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sections 379,
380, 381, 404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also in case of any
offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine,
or with both.
This Act empowers the Court to release certain offenders on probation of good
conduct if the offence alleged to have been committed is not punishable with
death or life imprisonment. However, he/she should be kept under supervision.
The Act insists that the Court may order for payment by the offender such
compensation and a cost of the proceedings as it thinks reasonable for loss or
injury caused to the victim.
The Act provides special protection to persons under twenty-one years of age by
not sentencing them to imprisonment. However, this provision is not available to
a person found guilty of an offence punishable with life imprisonment.
The Act provides freedom to the Court to vary the conditions of bond when an
offender is released on probation of good conduct and to extend the period of
probation not to exceed three years from the date of original order.
 9

The Act empowers the Court to issue a warrant of arrest or summons to the
offender and his sureties requiring them to attend the Court on the date and time
specified in the summons if an offender released on probation of good conduct
fails to observe the conditions of bond.
The Act empowers the Court to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment
under the provisions of this Act. Such order may also be made by the High Court
or any other Court when the case comes before it on appeal or in revision.
The Act provides an important role to the probation officers to help the Court and
to supervise the probationers put under him and to advise and assist them to get
suitable employment.

The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Procedure for Probation Service:-
Section 3
Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition. When any person is
found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or
section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more
than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any
other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by
which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the
circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character
of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing
him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under
section 4 release him after due admonition.
In Keshav Sitaram Sali v. State of Maharashtra, it was held by the Supreme
Court that in a case of petty theft the High Court should have extended the
benefit of either section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or sections 3 and
4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant instead of imposing a
sentence of fine on him.
Section 4
Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.-(1)
When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found
guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including
 10

the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to
release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of
sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his
entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence
when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court
may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is
satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or
regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in
which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the
bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into
consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to
the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion
that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in
addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under
the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not
being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such
supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due
supervision of the offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the
offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to
observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions
with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the
court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose
for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences
by the offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to
the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one
copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and
the probation officer concerned.
In Basikesan v. State of Orissa, a youth of 20 years was found guilty of an
offence punishable under section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and no
previous conviction was proved against him. It was held by the court that the
offence committed by the accused was not out of deliberate preparation or
design but it was a fit case for application of section 3 and he be released after
due admonition.
 11

Section 6
Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age.-(1)
When any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having
committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment
for life), the court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to
imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the
case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it
would not be desirable to deal with him under section 3 or section 4, and if the
court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its
reasons for doing so.
(2) For the purpose of satisfying itself whether it would not be desirable to deal
under section 3 or section 4 with an offender referred to in sub-section (1) the
court shall call for a report from the probation officer and consider the report, if
any, and any other information available to it relating to the character and
physical and mental condition of the offender.
In Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana’, it was held that the object of section 6 is to
ensure that juvenile offenders are not sent to jail for offences which are not so
serious as to warrant imprisonment for life, with a view to prevent them from
contamination due to contact with hardened criminals of the jail. Therefore, the
provision should be liberally construed keeping in view the spirit embodied
therein.
The question of age of the person is relevant not for the purpose of determining
his guilt but only for the purpose of punishment which he should suffer for the
offence of which he is found guilty. Therefore, where a court found that offender
was not under the age of 21 years on the date when court found him guilty, sub-
section (1) of section 6 will not apply.

Origin And Concept of Parole

The concept of parole is based on the principle of rehabilitation, which aims to help prisoners
reintegrate into society and lead a normal life after their release. The origin of the parole
system in India can be traced back to the British colonial era when the Indian Penal Code of
1860 was enacted. The code provided for the temporary release of prisoners on the grounds of
illness, family emergencies, or other humanitarian grounds.
The Prisons Act of 1894 further refined the concept of parole by allowing for the temporary
release of prisoners on the grounds of good behaviour and providing guidelines for the
management and administration of prisons in India. Each state in India also has its laws and
regulations related to parole, which may vary in terms of the eligibility criteria for parole, the
length of the release period, and the conditions that prisoners must follow while on parole.
The concept of parole is based on the belief that prisoners who have shown good behaviour
and a willingness to reform should be given a second chance to reintegrate into society. By
 12

providing prisoners with a temporary release from prison, the parole system aims to encourage
them to lead a normal life and reform themselves. This helps to reduce the burden on the
overcrowded prison system and contributes to the overall goal of achieving a just and fair
criminal justice system.
Parole consists of two types i.e. Regular parole which includes illness, calamities, etc.,
and Emergency Parole which includes the death of family members. The decision to grant
parole is typically made by a parole board, which evaluates the prisoner’s case and determines
whether they are eligible for release. Once released, the prisoner must follow certain
conditions, such as reporting regularly to a parole officer and refraining from engaging in any
criminal activities.

Meaning of parole
The word parole is derived from the French phrase “je donne ma parole”, which
means “I give my word,” and its dictionary definition is “word of honour”.
Treatment in the form of monitoring, direction, and help is ideal for parole. While
it is correct that all released prisoners benefit from parole officials’ supervision,
the benefit to society as a whole would be significant if all prisoners were kept
under tight monitoring during the time of adjustment following their release. A
prisoner who spends nearly a decade behind bars loses connection with the
outside world regarding transportation, purchasing basic necessities, renting a
house/shop, etc, but he acquires a set of distinct everyday living skills that must
be unlearned by the prisoner.
The concept of parole has its origins in military law. The interim release was
provided to prisoners of war so that they might return to their families and live
as members of society for a period of time, with the promise of returning when
the time period was over. With the passage of time, parole became an element
of India’s criminal justice system, allowing inmates to participate in society for a
period of time. It could only be granted to a prisoner if he or she had already
served a portion of his or her sentence.

Background of the concept of parole

The idea of parole finds its roots in the positivist school of Law. Samvel G.
Howe, a Boston criminal reformer, used the phrase “parole” in a correctional
context in 1847. People are free to select their own behaviour, according to the
Classical School of Philosophy. An offender constantly calculates his gain, his
pleasure, at the expense of others’ anguish when committing any crime. As a
result, he must be punished. However, the Positivist school maintained that
circumstances drove people to commit crimes. As a result, he has to be
rehabilitated. The idea of parole evolved from there. It gives the prisoner a
second chance to reform himself. Although the offender may have committed a
 13

crime, it is not desirable that he be forever stigmatized and denied the

opportunity to rehabilitate himself.

Types of parole in India

Custody parole or emergency parole

Custody parole is provided in emergency situations. Except for foreigners and
those serving death sentences, all convicted persons may be eligible for
emergency parole for 14 days for reasons such as the death of a family member
(which includes grandparents, father, mother, spouse, son, daughter, brother,
sister) and the marriage of a family member (which includes son, daughter,
brother, sister), provided that emergency parole cannot be extended.

The Superintendent of jail grants parole, which is subject to verification of the

circumstances from the concerned police station. Depending on the offence
committed by the prisoner and his behaviour during his stay, the authority
approving emergency parole will determine whether to give parole under police
escort or with a condition to report daily to the local police station. Prior to his
parole release, the prisoner will be responsible for the costs of a police escort.
Except in the case of the death of his nearest relatives, a prisoner may not be
released on regular or emergency parole for a period of one year after the
expiration of his previous emergency or regular parole.

Regular parole
Except in exceptional circumstances, offenders who have served at least one
year in prison are eligible for regular parole for a maximum of one month. It is
awarded for a variety of reasons, including:

1. A family member’s (which includes father, mother, spouse, son,

daughter) serious illness
2. A family member’s death or an accident. (same as custody parol, as
stated above)
3. A member of the family marries.
4. The convict’s wife gives birth to the child (except for high-security risk
prisoners).
5. Maintain social or familial ties.
 14

6. Natural calamities cause serious harm to the convict’s family’s life or

possessions.
7. Continue to file a Special Leave Petition.

The distinction between parole and furlough

The Supreme Court has clarified the difference between parole and furlough in a
number of decisions (the State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Panduram
(2006), State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Mohinder Singh (2000), etc). The
following are a few of them:

1. Parole and furlough are both forms of conditional release.

2. Parole can be awarded in the case of short-term detention, whereas
furlough is allowed in the case of long-term detention.
3. Parole lasts for one month, whereas furlough lasts for a maximum of
14 days.
4. The Divisional Commissioner grants parole, and the Deputy Inspector
General Prison grants furlough.
5. A specific justification for parole is necessary, whereas a furlough is
intended to break the monotony of imprisonment.
6. In the case of furlough, the duration of incarceration is not taken into
account for calculating the term of parole.
7. Parole can be given multiple times, whereas furlough has a limit.
8. Furlough can be denied in the interest of society because it is not
granted for any specific reason.
9.

Provision/Laws Governing Parole in India

These laws provide the legal framework for the parole system in India and govern the grant and
revocation of parole, they are:
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): It provides for the grant of parole to prisoners. Section
432 of the CrPC gives the power to the state government to release a prisoner on parole before
the completion of their sentence. This power can be exercised at any time after the prisoner’s
conviction and can be granted for a specified period or until the prisoner’s sentence is
completed.
Section 433A of the CrPC specifies the eligibility criteria for the grant of parole. According to this
section, a prisoner who has completed one-third of their sentence (in case of general crimes) or
half of their sentence (in case of heinous crimes) may be released on parole. However, this
 15

provision is subject to certain conditions, such as the absence of any pending appeals or cases
against the prisoner, and the submission of a satisfactory surety for the prisoner’s release.
Also, Section 435 of the CrPC allows the government to grant remission of sentences to
prisoners, which may include the release of parole. It’s important to note that the grant of
parole is a discretionary power and not an absolute right. The decision to grant parole is usually
based on objective criteria and is subject to the discretion of the parole board.
Prisons Act, 1894: It provides for the establishment of a parole board to evaluate the prisoner’s
case and decide whether to grant parole. Section 36 of the Prisons Act gives the power to the
state government to release a prisoner on parole before the completion of their sentence. The
parole board established under the state government evaluates the prisoner’s case and decides
whether to grant parole. The board may consider factors such as the prisoner’s conduct in
prison, their likelihood of reoffending, their social and economic conditions, and their family
situation while making this decision.
Model Prison Manual: It is a set of guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, for the management of prisons in India. The manual includes provisions
related to the grant of parole to prisoners. Chapter 27 of the Model Prison Manual provides
detailed guidelines for the grant of parole. According to these guidelines, parole can be granted
to prisoners based on the following grounds:
1.Family grounds: Parole can be granted to prisoners based on compassionate grounds, such
as visiting a seriously ill family member or attending a family function like a wedding or funeral.
2.Medical grounds: Parole can be granted to prisoners who need medical treatment that is not
available in the prison hospital or to undergo medical tests or surgery.
3.Other grounds: Parole can also be granted to prisoners for other reasons, such as to pursue
higher education or vocational training, to participate in sports or cultural activities, or to settle
family or business disputes. Section 4 specifies the eligibility criteria, the procedure for applying
for parole, and the conditions to be followed during the parole period. Section 60A allows for
the release of prisoners on emergency parole in case of a natural disaster or other
emergencies.
State Laws: While the CrPC and the Prisons Act provide a general framework for the grant of
parole in India, specific provisions and eligibility criteria for parole may vary from state to state.
For example, the state of Maharashtra has its own set of rules and regulations for the grant of
parole, which are laid down in the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
These rules specify the eligibility criteria for the grant of parole, the procedure for applying for
parole, and the conditions to be followed during the parole period.
Similarly, Delhi has its own set of rules and regulations for the grant of parole, which are laid
down in the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. These rules provide guidelines for the grant of emergency
parole and regular parole, the eligibility criteria for different types of parole, and the procedure
for applying for parole. Other states also have their laws and policies governing the grant of
parole, which may vary in terms of the eligibility criteria, the procedure for applying for parole,
and the conditions to be followed during the parole period.
 16

State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh (2015): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the parole
board must consider the social and economic conditions of the prisoner and their family while
deciding whether to grant parole.

Parole Board
The Parole Board determines which incarcerated individuals serving indeterminate
sentences in state prison may be released to community supervision. Executive Law
(Section 259-i (2) (a)) requires the Parole Board to personally interview incarcerated
individuals eligible for release.
The Parole Board panel, generally comprised of 2 or 3 members, reviews the
incarcerated individual's file, letters in support of or opposition to release, and
recommendations from district attorneys, sentencing courts, and defense attorneys who
represented them at the time of the offense to determine release.
Incarcerated individuals do not have the right to counsel at release interviews.

Parole Officer
Individuals discharged from prison may have difficulty accessing the necessary
support and resources to reintegrate into society and abide by the guidelines set
by the court. A parole officer is a law enforcement officer whose responsibility is
to assist parolees in reintegrating into society, supervise their activities, review
their progress with their families and ensure they do not violate any laws or
commit any offences while on parole. Some of their other duties may include:
Maintaining regular reports about the parolees’ behaviour
Conducting random drug testing
Making sure the parolee does not violate any parole guidelines set by the court
Accompanying the parolee to court and making recommendations based on
their behaviour
Discussing the parolee’s progress and activities with their employers
Documenting observations and any violations, maintaining case files, conducting
interviews and presenting information to law enforcement agencies or courts
Talking with family members, community members and other concerned
individuals about the parolee’s activities, daily progress, interactions and any
other concerns they may have

Parole conditions
Parole is never unconditional and prisoners must agree in writing to comply
with conditions set by the Parole Board.
 17

Failure to comply with parole conditions could result in being returned to prison.

The following conditions apply to all parolees:

1. they must not commit an offence

2. they must not possess an offensive weapon
3. they must be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer
4. they must obey any reasonable direction from the assigned
Community Corrections Officer.

Limitation of Parole

Parole, the conditional release of a prisoner before the end of their sentence, has
several limitations in law:

1. **Eligibility**: Not all prisoners are eligible for parole. Eligibility criteria often
depend on the nature of the crime, the length of the sentence, and the behavior
of the prisoner.

2. **Conditions**: Parolees must comply with certain conditions, such as regular

check-ins with a parole officer, maintaining employment, and avoiding criminal
activity. Violation of these conditions can result in a return to prison.

3. **Discretion**: The decision to grant parole is often at the discretion of a

parole board, which assesses factors such as the offender's behavior in prison, the
nature of the crime, and the risk of reoffending.

4. **Public Safety**: Parole decisions are influenced by considerations of public

safety. Offenders deemed to pose a high risk to the community are less likely to
be granted parole.

5. **Legal Restrictions**: Certain jurisdictions have laws limiting parole for

specific types of crimes, such as violent or sexual offenses, to protect public
safety.
 18

6. **Revocation**: Parole can be revoked if the parolee violates any conditions of

their release, commits a new crime, or fails to report to their parole officer.

7. **Resource Constraints**: The parole system requires significant resources for

monitoring and supporting parolees, which can limit the effectiveness of parole
programs.

These limitations aim to balance the rehabilitation of offenders with the safety
and security of the community.

Executive clemency

The clemency power of the executive has a unique nature which changes with
time. In the traditional view it was a sovereign power in the hand of her majesty;
from the political point of view it is a residuary power and from humanitarian
approach, it is a path to ensure justice and mercy. The Constitution of India
envisaged the clemency power of executive under Article 72 and Article 161.The
purpose of this paper is to enlighten the reader about the fundamentals of
clemency power, the historical background, the purpose of clemency power and
its nature with reference to India, United States and U.K., the paper will also
discuss the recent doubts which has arisen on clemency powers in amid of
Nibhya Case and the paper will conclude by pointing out unyielding
recommendations based on the comparative study for India’s Executive
Clemency Power.Mercy jurisprudence is a part of an evolving standard of
decency, which is the hallmark of the society.[1] The President may grant
pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or suspend, remit or
commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence.[2] The power of
clemency or pardon can be invoked in three situations; first, in cases where
punishment and sentence are by a court-martial; secondly, in cases where the
punishment or sentence is for an offence where parliament bestow jurisdiction to
make law; and, thirdly, in all the cases of a death sentence.[3]

The act of giving pardon is not a private ‘act of grace’. The power to grant is
constitutionally reposed in the head of the State and, therefore, constitutes a
solemn constitutional responsibility.[4] The Power of pardon continues to exist in
the constitutional and democratic setup to prevent the injustice in the society
which is caused due to draconian law or due to miscarriage in process of justice;
 19

consequently, the necessity vesting such power in an authority other than the
judiciary has always been recognized”.[5]

Pardoning Power Of President In India

The power of Presidential Pardon is found in Article 72 of the Indian Constitution. It states:
Power of President to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in
certain cases:

1.The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of
punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any
offence:

a) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court Martial;

b) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating
to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;

c) In all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death

2.Noting in sub clause (a) of Clause (1 ) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or
commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor of a State under any law for the
time being in force.

Pardoning Power Of Governor

Article 161 mentions the Pardoning Power of the Governor. It states:
The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or
remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person
convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power
of the State extends.

When a convict has committed an offence against state law, the concerned punishment
can be granted the pardon, reprieve, respite and remission by the Governor of the state.

Governor's power to pardon overrides a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure -

Section 433A -which mandates that a prisoner's sentence can be remitted only after 14
years of jail, a Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna observed in a judgment.
 20

Types Of Pardoning Power

There are five terms or types of pardoning powers mentioned in Article 727 and Article 1618
of Indian Constitution.

All these powers are described here for a basic understanding.

Pardon:

When the President pardons, both the sentence and the conviction of the convict
completely absolve the sentences, punishments and disqualifications.

Respite:

When the President uses the pardoning power of ‘Respite’, he chooses to award a lesser
sentence in place of one originally awarded to the convict. For example, due to some
special fact, such as the physical disability of a convict or the pregnancy of a woman
offender, the President can use this power.

Reprieve:

When the President chooses the pardoning power of ‘Reprieve’; he stays the execution of a
sentence (especially that of death) for a temporary period. By doing this, he enables the
convict to have time to seek pardon or commutation from him.

Remit:

When the President chooses the pardoning power of Remit, he acts to reduce the period of
the sentence, but the character of the sentence remains the same. For example, a
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years may be remitted to rigorous imprisonment
for one year but the imprisonment remains rigorous.

Commute:

When the President chooses to use this pardoning power of ‘Commute; he substitutes one
form of punishment for a lighter form. For example, a death sentence may be commuted to
rigorous imprisonment, which in turn may be commuted to simple imprisonment.

1. Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Others, (2016). 7 SCC 1 (Five-judge Bench)
2. Mohd Arifv. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737 (Five-judge Bench).
3. K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, AIR 2005 SC 688 (Five-judge Bench).
4. Kehar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 653 (Five-judge Bench).
5. Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147 (Five-judge Bench).
 21

Commutation of sentence
In contrast to Suspension and Remission, which only affect the duration of the punishment
without interfering with the nature of the punishment, Commutation, on the other hand,
changes the nature of the punishment and converts it into a less severe form of
punishment.
There is nothing to restrict the government to commutate a sentence, even if it is as low
as a fine. Under Section 433 of the CrPC, the appropriate government gets the power to
commutate the sentence in an appropriate case. Various sentences are eligible for
commutation, one of them is death sentence i.e.mercy plea
• Death sentence to any other punishment provided in the IPC.
• Imprisonment for life to any other imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years or
fine.
• Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for simpler imprisonment which the person
has been sentenced or a fine.
• Sentence for a simple sentence to a fine.

Commutation of death sentence has always been in the controversy, it raises an issue
regarding the basic human rights of the accused and on the other hand the impact of the
grave crime on the society. Section 433 of the CrPC gives the power to the government to
commutate the death sentence to a simpler sentence.
Most of the convicts of the death sentence, get their sentence reduced to 14 years of life
imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of CrPC.

Indeterminate sentence,
Indeterminate sentence, in law, term of imprisonment with no definite duration within a
prescribed maximum. Eligibility for parole is determined by the parole authority. In this
respect, an indeterminate sentence differs from a definite one in that statutes prescribing
the latter usually provide for parole eligibility after a specified fraction of the full term—in
most countries, from one-half to two-thirds of the original sentence.
Indeterminate sentences were pioneered in the reformatory movement of the last quarter
of the 19th century. Release was determined by progress made under the program of
training rather than by a judicially established sentence. In current practice, release on
parole from an indeterminate sentence is initiated by the recommendation of prison staff
personnel, field parole officers, and the parole authorities. Evaluation of the offender’s
conduct in prison, the nature of his offense, his life history, his prospects in the community,
his general personality, and his attitude determine his suitability for parole.
 22

What is indeterminate sentencing?

Under state criminal laws, and within the criminal justice system, “indeterminate
sentencing”
refers to a specific way that a sentence is imposed in a criminal case.
When a sentencing judge announces an indeterminate sentence, he/she gives a mandatory
minimum term of confinement but does not provide a concrete release date from prison.1
For example, a judge might impose the following indeterminate sentences:
“5 years to 15 years in state prison,” or
“20 years to a life sentence.”
Once inmates serve their minimum sentences, parole boards can review their cases and
determine whether or not they should be released.2 If a board refuses to release an inmate,
that person remains in custody and parole release is discretionary as determined by a
future parole board meeting.
Determinate sentencing is different that indeterminate sentencing. When a judge gives a
determinate sentence, he/she imposes a prison term that has a specific amount of time
(for example 3 years in county jail or 7 years in prison).
With a determinate sentence, the length of a prison term cannot be changed by a parole
board or a state’s department of corrections.

Criticism against intermediate sentence

What are the Positive and Negative Attributes of Indeterminate

Sentencing?

Indeterminate sentencing has valued properties, which is why it has survived so long
and is the predominant mechanism in the United States. Advantages include:

5. Sentencing is seen as a human process. Indeterminate sentencing recognizes that rigid

policies cannot take into account meaningful differences among cases.
6. Rehabilitation is an explicit goal. Humans are redeemable, and indeterminate sentencing
allows maximum scope for efforts to provide services to prisoners and to give them programs
(and reasons to take advantage of them) for self-improvement and advancement.
7. Public safety is a goal. Indeterminate sentencing allows judges and prison officials to
consider public safety considerations. Decisions about parole release can take account of
offenders’ risk profiles, and decisions about probation can be fine-tuned to the particular risks
individual offenders present and the temptations they face.
8. Delegation of authority. Decision-making authority is in the hands of the judges and
corrections officials in direct contact with the offender and their circumstances.
 23

9. Professionalization. Indeterminate sentencing assumes that judges and corrections officials

have specialized knowledge and experience that can be used to design the most effective
punishments.

Disadvantages include:

▪ Disparities. A principal criticism of indeterminate sentencing is that there are too often stark
differences for people who have committed similar crimes. These disparities tend to arise
from the personal outlook of the judges and parole officials.
▪ Bias and stereotypes. Similarly, opponents assert that indeterminate sentencing too easily
allows judges’ conscious and unconscious biases and stereotyping, including those based
on race.
▪ Inadequate implementation. Some critics argue that the corrections system rarely if ever
carries through on its promises of vocational training, psychological services, and drug and
alcohol rehabilitation. During the height of indeterminate sentencing, many American prisons
were squalid, brutal places.
▪ Deserved punishments. The “deserved punishment” criticism holds that people should
receive particular punishments and that anything else downplays the seriousness of the
crime.

Juvenile Offenders and Reformation

Juveniles are not known as, an adult accused person is generally known of, i.e.
as criminals or as adult offenders but rather they are known as delinquents. A
delinquent is a child who commits an offence and is between the age of 16-18
years of age. This is primarily a basic difference between adult offenders and
juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders have adjudication hearings instead of
trials.

Juvenile offenders do not have the same constitutional rights as adult offenders.
Their hearing is usually done by the judges themselves and in case of adult
offenders, the trial is being done by their peer judges. Juvenile delinquents do
not have rights such as the right to get bail or to have a public trial. These
constitutional rights are only for adult offenders.

Juvenile records are mostly sealed so they won’t be liable as criminals for a
lifetime and to remove the stigma and criminal label from them, most of the
juvenile criminal records are erased once they turn 18 if they meet certain
criteria. Juvenile courts provide extra protection to the juveniles as compared to
adult courtrooms. There are many rights and protections that are granted to
juvenile delinquents such as the right to issue a notice to them about their
delinquent acts before the adjudication hearings, right to have an attorney or
 24

public prosecutor if they can’t afford them and right to release pre-release if
their delinquent acts are not that heinous and violent.

Judges of juvenile courts must adhere to all the guidelines of the Act and should
always take decisions in the best interest of the child. After adjudication it is the
duty and responsibility of the judge to decide and to classify his crime as petty,
serious, or heinous and what punishment is appropriate based on it. This is
something known as ‘disposition’.

In the case of adult offenders, the main objective of the trial and criminal
offenders is punishment so as to serve as a deterrent to fellow offenders. But,
this is not in the case of juvenile offenders, the main objective of trial in case of
juvenile courts is to make them aware of their crimes, to preach them and to
rehabilitate them so they can live a good and productive life.

According to the recent 2015 amendment in the Juvenile Justice Act, now 16
years old who have committed some heinous offence, they will be treated as
adults in adult criminal courts, not in juvenile courts. So, this is the basic
objective and procedure for trials of juvenile offenders.

Evolution Of Juvenile Justice System In India:

Evolution of juvenile justice system in India can be divided into 6 faces through reference to
treatment of children to legislative development the duration intervention as well as other
government policies. Prior to 1773 we have Hindu law and Muslim law Hindu's used to
follow manusmriti where is Muslims use to follow Sharia law. Both the laws governed this
the society and emphasis on proper upbringing of a children as the sole responsibility of a
parent they have to take care and protect the children. If they were unable to do that then
someone from their community used to take care of the child.

Under the Muslim law if a abandoned child was found and feel that this child would be
harmed then the person who found the child was under the duty and obligation to take care
of the child. While comparing these two regulations, we see that children were penalized
for crimes in various ways.

For example, a Hindu child who was caught throwing trash in a public area had to clean it
up whereas an adult had to pay a fee. There is a more detailed induction in Muslim law that
prohibits the execution of children. The other traditional text so demonstrates that children
 25

were considered differently from adults and that, when actions involving the care or
survival of a child were taken, they were not held entirely accountable.

1773-1849:
After the crown acquired control in 1608; the East India Company was established as a
trade firm. Between 1773 and 1815, numerous committees were founded with a focus on
children in jails. The charter act of 1833 changed the company's commercial position to
that of a governing body. For Bal Krishna Chandra, this system of child welfare took on
various shapes.

The then-governor general is contacted by Ghoshal and J.Narayana Ghoshal in order to set
up residences for young people in need in the important training city of Calcutta. Since the
first ragged school for squatters and orphans was founded in Bombay in 1843. The
intention was to reform the young offenders who had been detained by luring them into
employment through industrial training and apprenticeship. Led to the 1855
apprenticeship act's passage as well.

1850-1919:
The printer ship act was passed in 1850 to keep juveniles out of jails, and according to the
report of the all India jail committee, minors were kept apart from the criminal court system
up until 1920. During this time, a number of laws specifically pertaining to children were
passed, the first of which gave minors a unique status through the apprenticeship act. The
age restriction for criminal culpability of dominance was subsequently set by sections 82
and 83 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860. Children were shielded from the criminal justice
system by the established parts until they had grown cognitive faculties to comprehend the
nature of their conduct.

CRPC between 1861 to 1898 in 3 section 298 399 in 562 prescribed for separate trial for the
person below the age of 15 years and required that they should be confined in reformative
than in adult prison. This change the approach towards treatment of the Juvenile from
punishment to reformation. Whipping act of 1864 also came into force.

Juvenile justice act of 1986:

first formal attempt by the Indian government at streamlining and formulating a specific law for
juveniles in India. Some important provision of 1986 act are:
 26

10. It defined a Juvenile as 16 years of age for boys and 18 years of age for girls.

11. children Where classified under 2 categories one is Juvenile delinquency that is children
under the prescribed age committed and offence and second neglected juveniles who
needed care and protection from the state and state institutions.

12. Act prohibited arrested child from being detained in police custody or in jail under any
circumstances.

13. Establishment of Juvenile courts and Juvenile welfare boards.

14. Once the proceedings are completed the neglected juvenile where sent to Juvenile
homes where the juvenile delinquents were kept in special home for a prescribe period
of time.

Juvenile justice care and protection act 2000:

India had ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child in 1992 the need to bring the
domestic law in conformity with the newly evolved and developed international standards that
India had a great to be bound by hence years of the effort focus on revamping the Juvenile
justice system law which adopted a new philosophy and new structure and a new institution.

Some of the features of this act are:

▪ Children in conflict with the law means juveniles who have committed an offence while
children in need of care and protection include those who are being or is likely to be
grossly abandoned abused tortured or exploited for the purpose of sexual abuse or
illegal act.

▪ also provided for the establishment of separate homes for different age groups in order
to separate the younger of endorse from the mature of juveniles this was inconformity
with the Beijing rules status on administration of Juvenile justice. The act contemplates
remand homes for juveniles and child welfare committee in every district and provides
for four types of homes for juveniles -observation homes, special homes, children
homes, shelter homes.

The act incorporates the international standards and includes a provision stating that the
 27

child's right to participation in proceedings pertaining to him or her (sec 12). This act also
clearly recognizes that civil society needs to be involved significantly if true justice is to be
provided to all children. Special Juvenile police unit was established to effectively handle
juveniles for every police station to have a job in or have child welfare officer who is
supposed to be trained and oriented to treating juveniles with care.

But there was certain criticism for this act like the act is violative of the existing human
rights standards which have been evolved by the states at the international level even
though its preamble indicates that the law attempts to be inconformity with the same and
incorporate the international standard into domestic law.

Amendment Of 2006-2000:

Act was amended in 2006 with the intention of establishing a legal framework for the
juvenile justice system in the nation. The amendment act also had the intention of defining
the machinery and infrastructure necessary for the same, establishing norms and
standards for administration of the juvenile system in India, and establishing links and
coordination between the formal system and the voluntary efforts in the welfare of
juveniles.

The 2006 act provide for the establishment of various kinds of institutions such as one -
children's homes for the reception of the children in need of care and production. Second-
for reception of children in conflict with the law. Third- after care organizations this would
take care of human health after that this discharge from children home or special home.
Fourthly- observation homes which are made for the temporary reception of children's
during the pendency of any inquiry.

The 2006 amendment reduce provisions pertaining to adoption in the Juvenile justice act
provides for the court to allow giving a child in adoption to another irrespective of that
persons marital status, irrespective of whether or not the adopting parents already have a
child with the same sex as the child which is to be adopted to childless couple as well as
though who have biological children. In other way we can say that it broadened the
provision on adoption of children in need of care and protection, a secular law was
available governing adoption of non Hindus as well as Hindus.
 28

What Reforms can be made in the Juvenile Justice System in

India?

The new Act provides a comprehensive mechanism to deal with children in conflict with
law as well as children who are in need of care and protection. Improvement of the juvenile
justice system is a gradual process, which requires intensive and continual follow-up as
well as long-term commitment rather than a series of 'ad hoc' exercises and 'knee-jerk'
responses

Child-centric human rights jurisprudence has become pivotal in the law's role in social
engineering. India is home to the largest child population in the world.

Juvenile can be defined as a child who has not attained a certain age at which he, like an
adult person under the law of the land, can be held liable for his criminal acts. The juvenile
is a child who is alleged to have committed/violated some law which declares the act or
omission on the part of the child as an offence. Juvenile and minor in legal terms are used
in different context. Juvenile is used when reference is made to young criminal offenders
and minor relates to legal capacity or majority.

The Constitution of India guarantees Fundamental Rights to all children in the country and
empowers the State to make special provisions for children. The Directive Principles of
State Policy specifically guide the State in securing the tender age of children from abuse
and ensuring that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy
manner in conditions of freedom and dignity. The Juvenile Justice system is based on
principles of promoting, protecting and safeguarding the rights of children. It was enacted
by the Indian Parliament in 1986. In the year 2000, the Act was comprehensively revised
based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which India had
ratified in 1992; the Beijing Rules; the United Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived
of their Liberty; and all other national and international instruments, thereby clearly
defining children as persons up to the age of 18 years.

This Act repealed the earlier Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 and has been further amended in
years 2006 and 2011. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ
Act/JJA), is the primary legal framework for juvenile justice in India. The JJ Act primarily
focusses on the twin interrelated aspects of juvenile delinquency and handling of children
in need of care and protection.

The JJ Amendment Act, 2006, brought substantive changes to the JJ Act, 2000. It has been
enacted to provide for care, protection, development and rehabilitation of neglected,
 29

delinquent children and includes within its ambit child labourers. Section 2 (d) (ia) includes
'working children' within the purview of a 'child in need of care and protection'. The Act
broadened the scope of rehabilitation of the child in need of care and protection, or of a
juvenile in conflict with the law, through not only the institutional but also the
noninstitutional approach.

The JJA creates a juvenile justice system in which persons up to the age of 18 who commit
an offence punishable under any law are not subject to imprisonment in the adult justice
system but instead, will be subject to advice/admonition, counselling, community service,
payment of a fine or, at the most, be sent to a remand home for three years.