THE PARADOX OF PROTECTION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GAP BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT IN INDIAN CHILD RIGHTS
AUTHOR – NIDA KHAN* & DR. JYOTSNA SINGH**
* STUDENT AT LLM. (CRIMINAL LAW), AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW CAMPUS
** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW CAMPUS
BEST CITATION – NIDA KHAN & DR. JYOTSNA SINGH, THE PARADOX OF PROTECTION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GAP BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT IN INDIAN CHILD RIGHTS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 387-394, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
ABSTRACT
The architecture of child protection in India is characterized by a profound paradox: a hyper-active, punitive legislative landscape juxtaposed against a sluggish and fragmented enforcement machinery. This research paper undertakes a critical analysis of the “law in action” versus the “law in books,” examining the systemic attrition of justice following the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and the transition to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Utilizing statistical data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Crime in India 2024 report, the study exposes a widening chasm between procedural success and substantive failure. While charge-sheeting rates for IPC crimes remain high (approximately 72.7%), conviction rates for crimes against children under POCSO stagnate between 20% and 36%. This discrepancy is attributed to a “procedural defeat” caused by the reliance on degrading oral evidence, the failure of Fast Track Special Courts to manage case bottlenecks, and a pervasive “compromise culture” abetted by police insensitivity.
Doctrinally, the paper critiques the judicial misinterpretation of “intent” (Section 300 IPC) versus “knowledge” (Section 304 IPC) in cases of fatal child abuse. It argues that the judicial application of the “Single Blow” doctrine and “Heat of Passion” defense in child homicide cases ignores the physiological vulnerability of children and inadvertently trivializes fatal abuse. The analysis further traces the oscillation of judicial interpretation, from the restrictive definitions in Sakshi v. Union of India to the restorative corrections regarding “skin-to-skin” contact in Attorney General v. Satish.
Finally, the research contrasts India’s retributive justice model with the restorative Scandinavian Barnahus framework, advocating for a centralized approach to evidence gathering to minimize secondary victimization. The study concludes by addressing the emergent threat of Deepfake technology and Generative AI, which challenges the ontology of evidence under the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) and exposes the obsolescence of current obscenity laws.
Keywords: Child Rights, POCSO Act, Judicial Enforcement, NCRB Data, Culpable Homicide, Restorative Justice, Barnahus Model, Deepfake Technology.