What Differentiates Us from Frogs? The Ecology of Delinquency in India

ABSTRACT
This essay critically examines the Indian juvenile justice framework, arguing that despite its rehabilitative intent, the system is undermined by linguistic stigma, data opacity and structural implementation gaps. Drawing parallels to a frog’s metamorphosis, the author uses a multidisciplinary approach that blends a critical analysis of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 with criminology, sociology and philosophy, contending that children in conflict with law are not inherently deviant but are shaped by developmental, environmental and socio-economic factors.

It further evaluates empirical evidence of institutional shortcomings, including inadequate observation homes, overcrowding, procedural denial of bail under Section 12 and instances of custodial harm. Judicial precedents are discussed to reinforce the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21 and the State’s parens patriae obligation.

Keywords: Juvenile Justice, Rehabilitation, Child Rights, Article 21, Sociology, Ecology, Amphibian Analogy

INTRODUCTION
Some frogs are never tadpoles; they’re born fully formed. Unfortunately, human beings don’t possess similar, god-like qualities to mature overnight. Neuro-scientific evidence establishes that the frontal lobe, responsible for impulse control and decision-making, continues to develop well into the twenties or even thirties. The Supreme Court has also observed that cognitive maturation depends on hereditary factors and if considering a child as an adult, one must look at physical maturity, cognitive abilities, social and emotional competencies^[1]. The law thus recognises that children are always in a state of becoming, akin to metamorphosis and the treatment of children as adults is an exception to the rule^[2].

HISTORY AND LINGUISTICS
The first recorded case of juvenile delinquency, among 39 other ‘firsts’ in the world, originated with the Sumerians^[3]. Though the Mesopotamians were more renowned for their lex talionis form of punishment, years of evolution have instilled in us a sense that justice must transcend vengeance. In multiple judgements^[4], the Supreme Court^[5] reinforced the ideology that the philosophy behind juvenile justice is restorative, not retributive and its aim is to rehabilitate and reintegrate such delinquents into society.

Etymologically, the word ‘delinquent’ originates from the Latin ‘dēlinquere’ which literally translates to ‘to leave’. Continuing the amphibian analogy, for most frog species, parental involvement ends the moment the eggs are deposited, leaving the developing tadpoles to fend for themselves. Similarly, children, whose one or both parents have ‘left’ — either by death or abandonment — are at heightened risk of developing delinquent behaviors.

Yet, the world at large seems to subconsciously lean toward Cesare Lombroso’s theory of biological determinism, proposing that criminals are ‘born’ rather than the product of circumstance. Society seems to follow a Marxist aphorism echoing the one famously coined by George Orwell that all children are innocent until proven guilty, but some children are more guilty than others. This is furthered by data that suggest that it is only the children of low economic and social backgrounds who get caught while those in the middle and high income group are able to settle outside the judicial process. This very ‘crime of being poor’ creates a distorted public narrative that scapegoats lower‑class crime as society’s principal problem. It is important to bear in mind that most of these children originate from circumstances where the end justifies the means and the perceived reward is far greater than the consequences.

The key determining factor of external social relations^[6] furthers the proverb, ‘it takes a village to raise a child’. If the African proverb holds true, then surely it also takes a village to raise a delinquent and in the same breath, ostracize one. Cultural stigmas surrounding crime often lead to early ostracisation, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, where society’s rejection reinforces antisocial behavior.

Even amphibians remind us that social belonging is not a luxury but a biological need. Research shows that individual frogs consistently choose particular companions, leading scientists to conclude that, in a meaningful sense, “frogs have friends”. If social connection aids survival in amphibians, it is indispensable for human juveniles, whose emotional development and safety depend on belonging. In Bhaka Ram v. State of Rajasthan^[7], the Rajasthan High Court condemned ostracisation as a violation of dignity and the fundamental rights to life and liberty, recognizing that forced exclusion inflicts deep social and mental harm.

Furthering my previous language argument, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter, the JJ Act, 2015), divides children in need of institutional care into two categories: children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection. While both groups are equally vulnerable and in need of protection, the label “children in conflict with law”, as defined under Section 2(xiii), carries an inherently negative connotation. This terminology not only undermines their dignity but also metaphorically brands them with a societal “Scarlet Letter”, further entrenching stigma and reinforcing the perception of criminality in public consciousness.

INSTITUTIONAL GAPS

While acknowledging Section 74 of the JJ Act, 2015, the paradoxical coexistence of both the absence and opacity of the overall data presents a troubling situation. In more than 500 Right to Information requests sent by India Justice Report regarding juvenile justice, 11% were rejected, 24% received no reply, and only 36% provided complete information^[8]. Experts say most incidents never make it to public record as institutions routinely invoke the child’s “privacy” to block scrutiny and keep violence hidden.

However, no law can fully stop eyes that are determined to see. Despite Section 13 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 explicitly prohibiting schools from conducting any form of screening procedure for admission, in practice many institutions have resorted to informal tests, interviews and interactions that function as screening mechanisms. In several instances, private schools have been reported to use informal interviews, parental questionnaires and background disclosures as de facto screening mechanisms. In Patiala, district officials had to publicly remind schools that interviewing parents and conducting tests was illegal because parents, being subjected to these procedures, feared repercussions if they complained. These incidents illustrate that, despite the law’s egalitarian intent, there is a rather stale aftertaste to the ‘principle of fresh start^[9]’ and the inherent dignity guaranteed to every child under Article 21.

While Courts acknowledge the present gaps in the JJ Act, 2015 and the need for amendments to be brought about, action is seldom taken proactively. Reform truly seems to be the child of crisis; the 2016 key amendment was itself made on the basis of justified knee-jerk public outrage at the brutal, high-profile Nirbhaya case, covered extensively by the media.

However, the fourth pillar of democracy picks and chooses the cases it wants to display, leaving crucial cases in the lurch, amid the clutter of advertisements. For instance, a teenage boy was beaten to death by two fellow inmates inside the Special Home for Boys in Majnu ka Tila, Delhi, which houses more than twice its capacity. In 2024, two groups of juveniles, triggered by a long-standing rivalry for dominance, clashed at the Government Juvenile Observation Home in Padri Bazaar locality, leaving ten juveniles injured. A Chhattisgarh juvenile delinquent was sexually assaulted in a child remand home in Mumbai. In Rajasthan, the number of juvenile homes fell from twenty-one to seven in just six years. For such children, the State proudly proclaimed itself to be parens patriae. Ironically, it was found that at least 9,681 children were wrongly incarcerated in adult prisons between January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021, an unsettling reminder of the Greek Titan, Kronos, who, in seeking to preserve power, turned upon the very children he was meant to protect. These incidents highlight severe institutional lapses and a glaring lack of funding, exposing the cracks in the juvenile justice system that are often ignored, even when tragedy strikes. These juveniles are said to have “fallen through the cracks” of society but the greater tragedy is that the safety net — the correctional homes and reforms — are themselves torn and threadbare.

Chilean Nobel Prize winner, Gabriel Mistral wrote:

“We are guilty of many errors and many faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life. Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot. Right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made, and his senses are being developed. To him we cannot answer ‘Tomorrow’, his name is today.”

Under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, a child in conflict with law is entitled to be released on bail, with or without surety. In practice, courts commonly require two sureties for a child’s release. One may be a family member, but the other must be a non‑blood relative prepared to assume supervisory responsibility. Securing such a non‑relative is often tedious, as many people are unwilling to be associated with these children due to stigma or fear of social and legal repercussions. As a result, despite being legally entitled to bail under Section 12, many children continue to languish for months in observation homes, meant for temporary care of undertrial juveniles, eroding their right to liberty and dignity under Article 21 and perpetuating needless institutionalisation.

In Sheela Barse v. Union of India^[10], the Supreme Court held that a jail is hardly a place where a child, even one accused of offences, should be kept. Undoubtedly, incarceration in jail would have a dwarfing effect on the development of the child, exposing him to harmful influences and coarsening his conscience. It is the criminogenic atmosphere of the jail which has a highly injurious effect on the mind of the child, estranging him from society and breeding in him aversion, bordering on hatred against a system which keeps him in jail. The Court held that if a State Government has not got sufficient accommodation in its remand or observation homes, the children should be released on bail, instead of being subjected to incarceration in jail.

CONCLUSION

This principle rests on a truth we recognise in every other sphere: environment determines survival. With most of the frog species on the brink of extinction, we mobilize science and resources to ensure their survival. We recognise that extinction is irreversible; once lost, a life cannot be restored by regret.

These children, too, exist in fragile ecosystems. They too require interventions like supportive environments, open mindsets, and opportunities that aim to restore and reintegrate rather than discard.

Thus, despite sharing 70% of our DNA with frogs, what truly differentiates us is not biology but moral capacity: a sense of community and humanity that emanates from the comparatively large organ beating within, lest we become predators for our very own.

Author’s Bio – Mihika Arun Nair is a B.A. LL.B (Hons.) student at Gujarat National Law University (Batch of 2030). She can be reached through her email mihika25sbal044@gnlus.ac.in

^[1] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, (2023) 12 SCC 401

^[2] Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 787

^[3] Samuel Noah Kramer, History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History (3rd edn, University of Pennsylvania Press 1981).

^[4] Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551

^[5]  Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 705

^[6] Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (University of California Press 1969).

^[7] Bhaka Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 632

^[8] ‘Juvenile Justice and Children in Conflict with the Law: A Study of Capacity at the Frontlines’ (India Justice Report, Nov 2025).

^[9] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 3(xiv).

^[10] Sheela Barse(II) v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 632