Author: Roshmi Paul, Brainware University

There are serious concerns over the suitability of current juvenile justice systems in the digital age due to the growing number of young people involved in cybercrimes such as identity theft, hacking, and cyberbullying. Addressing technology-driven offences presents additional difficulties for the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which was established on the tenets of reformation and rehabilitation. This study looks at the growing number of teenage cybercrimes, the moral and legal conundrums surrounding guilt, and the shortcomings of the existing legal system. In order to handle cross-border cases successfully, it also addresses the necessity of specialised cyber cells, improved digital literacy, and international collaboration. The justice system can achieve a balance between accountability and reform by combining preventive technology with rehabilitation-focused strategies.  The ultimate objective is to use education, counselling, and inclusive policy changes to turn young cybercriminals into responsible digital citizens.

Keywords:-Juvenile Justice, Cybercrime, Rehabilitation, Digital Literacy.

The juvenile justice system in contemporary cultures is based on the understanding that children and adolescents are fundamentally different from adults in terms of maturity, cognitive development, and change-capacity.  Protecting children, rehabilitating rather than punishing them, maintaining their dignity, and assisting in their reintegration into society are the main goals of the system. Principles like "best interests of the child," proportionality, individualised therapy, minimal intervention, and restorative justice serve as the foundation for these objectives. Therefore, in addition to responding to misconduct, the juvenile justice system is made to address its underlying causes, offer guidance, and deter recidivism.

A juvenile criminal in India must be treated with "care, protection, and social reintegration" as opposed to just retaliation, according to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.  The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which states that policies affecting children in legal trouble should give priority to rehabilitation, dignity, and age-appropriate procedures, is in line with the Act.  Furthermore, the Act in India reflects the theory that juveniles have a higher capacity for reform due to their developmental stage.  Although the Act permits 16 to 18-year-olds to be tried in adult court for some "heinous" offences, this provision has generated controversy, particularly in situations like cybercrime when purpose, sophistication, and maturity differ significantly.

These goals and tenets work well because they aim to lessen stigmatisation, humanise the reaction to juvenile offences, and direct funds into counselling, education, and psycho-social care rather than lengthy prison terms. Because minimal involvement is emphasised, institutional and legal responses must be appropriate and not overly intrusive. Instead of being processed mechanically, the individualisation principle requires that each juvenile be evaluated based on psychological, social, and contextual factors. By including victims, family, and communities, the restorative component promotes making amends for the harm and holding the young person accountable in a positive manner.

However, these principles now face additional difficulties as a result of the digital era's explosive growth.  Juveniles are increasingly involved in cybercrimes as both victims and offenders. Teenagers may feel more comfortable engaging in hacking, identity fraud, cyberbullying, sextortion, phishing, or online harassment because of the anonymity, minimal discovery risk, and technical detachment of cyberspace. For instance, the Chinese study found that high levels of concealment, technological proficiency, and younger participant ages are features of juvenile cybercrime.  Because offenders can operate virtually, jurisdiction, evidence gathering, and accountability are made more difficult.

Juvenile involvement in cybercrimes appears to be on the rise, according to statistical trends, particularly in cities with high internet penetration rates.  Lawmaking and policymaking are made more difficult by the dual roles of juveniles—both criminals and as victims susceptible to sexual exploitation, cyberstalking, and grooming.  Juvenile justice principles are put to the test in the digital context

A juvenile, often known as a "child in conflict with law," is defined by the Act as an individual who has not reached the age of eighteen on the date of the offence.

A non-punitive and kid-friendly method- The Act prioritises care, social reintegration, and rehabilitation over punishment.

Particular organisations and entities- The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is responsible for conducting investigations, making initial evaluations, and making decisions regarding minors who are in legal trouble. 

Child Welfare Committees (CWCs)- For kids who need protection and care a variety of institutional residences, such as "places of safety," special homes, and observation homes.

Offence classification- The Act assigns a severity classification to offences

• Petty offences (up to three years in prison) 

• Serious offences (three to seven years in prison) 

• Serious offences (minimum penalty of seven years)

Initial evaluation (for serious acts, ages 16–18)- Before deciding whether to transfer the case to a Children's Court to be tried like an adult, the JJB(Juvenile Justice Board) must perform a preliminary assessment if a juvenile between the ages of 16 and 18 is accused of committing a serious crime. This assessment must determine the juvenile's mental and physical capacity, comprehension of the consequences, and circumstances.  . Procedure protections and safeguards  Within twenty-four hours, the kid must appear before the Board.  No joint proceedings with adults.  For assessment, the Board may enlist the help of professionals (social workers, psychologists).  Certain punitive orders, such as life in jail without the possibility of parole, are prohibited for children under the Act.  stressing that custody ought to be used as a last resort and for the least amount of time.

Age limit is, younger than eighteen on the crime date  18 years of age or older. The system's goal is to emphasise protection, rehabilitation, reform, and reintegration.  The cases are handled by JJB( Juvenile Justice Board) or following a Children's Court preliminary evaluation. Initial evaluation is useful for determining the potential of an adult-style trial for those aged 16 to 18 in severe crimes.

Sentencing and penalties: susceptible to kid-friendly penalties; no severe penalties beyond what the law permits for minors.

Protective measures: Juvenile proceedings provide heightened procedural safeguards, including separate detention facilities, access to expert consultation, and protection from harsh treatment. In contrast, children receive fewer protections when processed under ordinary criminal procedure.

Adults in a joint trial: Juveniles are generally not tried with adults; this is permitted only in limited circumstances and typically requires specific conditions to be met through the Children's Court. Adult trials normally involve only adult defendants.

Underlying goals: Juvenile justice prioritizes the child’s welfare and future reintegration into society, whereas the adult criminal justice system emphasizes justice, public safety, and deterrence.

There has been a discernible increase in juvenile cybercrimes as a result of more access to social media and digital technologies.  Technology makes it easier for young people to engage in dangerous online activity because it offers anonymity, speed, and reach.  According to legal studies (such as those conducted in India), kids are increasingly committing crimes like identity theft, hacking, cyberbullying, and online sexual offences.

Types of Cybercrimes Performed by Children  

The typical kinds consist of: 

• Cyberbullying or harassment is when peers are threatened, degraded, or intimidated via social media or messaging. 

• Sexual offences committed online include sexting, grooming, and sharing explicit content. 

• Unauthorised access, or hacking, includes stealing credentials and breaking into systems. 

• Using someone else's identity online to commit financial or social deception is known as identity theft or fraud. 

• Spreading hate speech or false information: This is detrimental to society but may not be prosecuted as often.  (Implied under bullying and harassment)

Minors commit cybercrime for a number of underlying psychological and societal reasons, including: 

The need for acceptance and peer pressure- Young people may imitate others or participate in unsafe activity out of a desire to fit in or be liked online. 

Absence of maturity and impulse control- Teenagers' brains are still maturing, particularly the parts that deal with risk assessment and long-term effects.  Impulsivity is the result of this. Peer pressure and developmental immaturity are noted by the Juvenile Law Centre (US). 

Gaps in digital literacy and low awareness- The ethical and legal ramifications of some internet behaviours are not completely understood by many young people.  familial/social environment: Unhealthy familial circumstances, exposure to abuse or neglect, or a lack of supervision can all be factors.  

The Impact of Social Media  Social media contributes to under-18s' propensity for cybercrime in multiple ways: 

Imitation and modelling: Kids copy their peers' or influencers' provocative or unlawful online activity (trolling, pranks, hacking).  Normalisation of bad behaviour: In certain social media platforms, hate speech, bullying, and unpleasant remarks are accepted as usual.  

Opportunity structure: Platforms provide potentially harmful tools (such as messaging, content sharing, and anonymity).  Dissemination is accelerated by social media.  Reinforcement and reward: Comments, likes, and shares on content that is sensational or contentious can serve as incentives, promoting escalation.

Identity formation and alienation: If problematic youth feel excluded, they may lash out or experiment with identities in online communities.

Juvenile cybercrimes, such as cyberbullying, online harassment, the production and dissemination of pornographic material, hacking, fraud, grooming, and more, are on the rise due to the growing use of digital technologies. Youngsters are attracted by apparent financial gain, anonymity, peer pressure, or curiosity.  Due to the fact that current juvenile justice rules were not created with the digital sphere in mind, they present ethical, social, and legal issues.

India 

Current Legislative Structures and Reforms:  The current foundational law is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act 2015).  It superseded the 2000 Act and, among other things, permits minors between the ages of 16 and 18 who commit serious crimes to face adult trials following a Juvenile Justice Board decision. 

 Sections 67, 67A, and 67B of the IT(Information Technology) Act of 2000 additionally address offences pertaining to child pornography and obscene content, which are pertinent when minors perpetrate or are the victims of cybercrimes. In order to effectively coordinate responses to cybercrimes, India built the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), which was unveiled in 2018.

Obstacles and Deficits:  The JJ Act contains no particular provisions addressing juvenile cyber offences, such as how to handle juveniles who engage in hacking, digital fraud, etc.  There is uncertainty on the extent to which cyber offences are considered "heinous crimes" and the applicability of the "understanding of nature of offence" test to digital acts.  Juveniles, parents, and administrators lack digital literacy and understanding.  Many young people may inadvertently violate the law without fully comprehending the repercussions.

Recent Actions and Suggested Reforms: 

 In order to combat the evolving nature of juvenile crimes involving the internet, the Chief Justice of India has urged for increased training in digital literacy, international cooperation, and parental advice.  More robust reporting systems include the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, which is part of government programs to address internet complaints about children. Anonymous reporting of internet exploitation is also examined by CCPWC (Cyber Crime Prevention against Women & Children) initiatives.

Raising responsibility for 16–18-year-olds was one of the measures and influences that came from the Delhi gang rape case (2012), which had a juvenile in conflict with the law.  This case demonstrates how horrific crimes perpetrated by minors lead to legal reform, even though it is not a cybercrime.  Another example is the 1982 Indian case Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, which clarified how age is determined in juvenile proceedings.  Age is established on the day the offence was committed, not on the day of the trial.  When digital criminal trials span time periods, that counts.

United Kingdom-

The juvenile justice system in the United Kingdom places a strong emphasis on rehabilitation, welfare, and avoiding the official criminal justice system as much as possible.  Benchmarks for age of criminal responsibility exist, as does the notion that minors shouldn't be put in jail until there are no other alternatives, as stipulated by UK legislation and international agreements like the UNCRC.  To combat online child sexual exploitation and dark-web offences, the UK has specialised law enforcement units and agencies (such as the Joint Operations Cell, which combines GCHQ and the National Crime Agency).  Platform responsibility, content moderation laws, privacy regulations, and data protection (such as under the GDPR) all contribute to reducing exposure and bringing those accountable for online harms to justice.

Although hacking and fraud by juveniles may not always be specifically addressed by juvenile justice legislation, the legal system has the means (cyber law, communications regulation) to address these issues.

The growing number of cyber-related offences committed by young offenders in the digital age presents significant difficulties for juvenile justice systems.  Comprehensive policy reforms are necessary to guarantee accountability as well as reformation. 

1. Strengthening Juvenile Justice Laws: Current legislation needs to include particular clauses that address juvenile cybercrimes.  A separate category for "cyber delinquency" should be added to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, with a focus on digital literacy, online ethics, and psychological counselling.  To ensure sensitive yet efficient management, specialised training for judges, law enforcement, and probation officers handling cyber crimes should be required.

2. Creation of Specialised "Cyber Juvenile Cells": Current law enforcement organisations ought to establish Juvenile Cyber Cells.  Cyber specialists, child psychologists, social workers, and solicitors with experience working with children would make up these cells.  Their duties would include restorative justice procedures in place of punitive ones, early intervention, rehabilitation initiatives, and digital awareness campaigns in schools.  The goal should be to change behaviour through digital education under supervision, coaching, and counselling.

3. International Cooperation in Cross-Border Cybercrimes: International cooperation is essential since cybercrimes frequently cross national borders.  Through established frameworks like INTERPOL and the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, India, the UK, and the US must cooperate together to share information, investigation methods, and best practices pertaining to young offenders.  In order to detect and prevent cross-border juvenile cyber offences and guarantee that kid rights are upheld globally, collaborative task forces and digital evidence-sharing mechanisms should be established.  In summary, a fair and forward-thinking approach to juvenile justice in the era of cybercrime can be achieved by combining technology-driven regulations, specialised rehabilitation frameworks, and international collaboration.

A forward-thinking, compassionate, and restorative approach to juvenile justice is necessary to re-establish the balance between justice and reform in a society that is increasingly digitising.  Punitive measures must give way to reformation, education, and the development of responsible digital citizenship as the main objectives.  Justice systems must comprehend the psychological and sociological factors influencing young people's involvement in cybercrimes as technology continues to change their lives.  Digital literacy, responsible technology use, and therapy that promotes social responsibility, empathy, and accountability should all be a part of rehabilitation.

Technology-driven educational initiatives, community engagement, and restorative justice methods must all be incorporated into a redesigned juvenile justice system.  "Cyber reformation cells," sometimes known as specialised cybercrime rehabilitation centres, might be places where young offenders learn how to use their digital abilities for positive things like cybersecurity training or digital innovation projects.  In order to combat cross-border juvenile cybercrimes and guarantee uniform standards of child protection and rehabilitation across countries, international cooperation will also be essential.

In the end, integrating technology knowledge with moral instruction is key to the future of juvenile justice in a society that is becoming more and more digital.  Societies may raise a generation of knowledgeable, accountable digital citizens by prioritising behavioural change, digital ethics, and preventative measures over punitive measures.  In addition to rehabilitating young offenders, this balance between justice and reformation fortifies the moral and digital fabric of the country, guaranteeing that justice develops with humanity and compassion at its centre.

• Rama Dutt, Co-Author: Megha Tayal, Cybercrime and Juvenile Justice: Legal Challenges and Reforms” (International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, Vol. 13 Issue 5, May 2025)

  
  

• ENPRESS Publisher, “Juvenile Delinquency and its Social Implications”, International Journal of Management, Social Sciences, and Humanities, EnPress Publisher (n.d.), available at https://systems.enpress-publisher.com/index.php/IJMSS/article/viewFile/2439/1617.

  
  

• Barbieri Law Firm, “Juvenile Justice in Texas: Key Differences Between Juvenile and Adult Courts”, Barbieri Law Firm Blog (n.d.), available at https://www.barbierilawfirm.com/blog/juvenile-justice-in-texas-key-differences-between-juvenile-and-adult-courts.

  
  

• Juvenile Law Center, “Youth Justice System Overview”, Juvenile Law Center (n.d.), available at https://jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview.