Author – Injamam-ul- Hoque

“Mankind owes to the child the best that it has to give”- Declaration of Geneva

Juvenile delinquency means the engagement of individuals below the statutory age of majority in unlawful behavior. While the Classical School of Criminology did not directly address juvenile delinquency, the concept of a separate justice mechanism for children emerged with the establishment of the first separate juvenile court in Chicago, USA, in 1899 (Khan & Rahman, 2008) that eventually spread across Europe in the twentieth century and other parts of the world. Bangladesh adopted its juvenile justice framework shortly after its independence and introduced its dedicated juvenile courts, correctional facilities, and child-specialized police desks. Despite these structural provisions, a critical question persists: does the juvenile justice system in Bangladesh genuinely operate within a rehabilitative model, or is it merely a symbolic gesture aimed at satisfying public perception and international convention? This discussion examines the historical development, current practices, and inherent limitations of the system, with a focus on its alignment with true rehabilitative principles.

The Development of the Juvenile Justice System in Bangladesh

During the medieval era, there were no specific laws in reference to children in conflict with the law. The Apprentices Act of 1850, India’s first enactment on juveniles to address children, was passed during the colonial era. The act aimed for the betterment of children, particularly orphans and impoverished children raised by public charities, and trained them in trades and crafts so that they could earn their livings when they reached adulthood (preamble to the Apprentices Act, 1850). The next significant development in the treatment of children in conflict with the law was the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 which enabled the establishment of reformatory schools by the provincial government to house and provide industrial training specially for male juvenile offenders under the age of fifteen. Courts could send the juvenile offenders to the reformatory school for a period of three to seven years instead of sentencing them to imprisonment or transportation. The Indian government passed the Bengal Children Act in 1922 for the province of Bengal. The Bengal Children Act, 1922 provided for the creation of a juvenile court to try cases involving children younger than fourteen. The act included the girls, guaranteeing them separate housing facilities and, if feasible, recruiting female officials for them (Khan & Rahman, 2008).

Subsequent to Bangladesh’s independence, the first legislative initiative aimed at addressing the rights of children in conflict with the law was the enactment of the Children Act, 1974 accompanied by the Children Rules, 1976. However, the 1974 Act’s initial application was narrow, mostly limited to Dhaka, before it was extended to other cities. In line with this legal framework, the first Child Development Center (CDC) was established in 1978 in Tongi, Gazipur, particularly for male juveniles. Subsequently, the Government of Bangladesh set up a second CDC for boys in Pulerhat, Jessore in 1995. It was not until 2003 that the first dedicated center for female juveniles was established in Konabari, Gazipur (Ahmed & Iqbal, 2025). As of now, three CDCs are operational in Bangladesh, each intended to serve as a rehabilitative institution for the children.

The international discourse on child rights significantly influenced the juvenile justice system in Bangladesh. The United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on November 20, 1989, the first legally binding international treaty to comprehensively address the rights of children. In response to its obligations under the CRC, the Government of Bangladesh eventually repealed the Children Act, 1974, and enacted the Shishu Ain 2013(Children Act, 2013). This act marked a paradigm shift in the juvenile justice system, expanding the definition of a child to include all individuals under the age of 18. It introduced several progressive measures, such as the establishment of child welfare boards and at least one Children’s Court to be established in each district, the formation of child-specialized police desks, legal representation on behalf of a child in conflict with the law and a strong emphasis on rehabilitation, reintegration, and diversion from the formal criminal justice process (Ali, 2014).

Ground Realities of Juvenile Delinquents: Lived Experiences in the CDC

The Department of Social Services, a department under the Ministry of Social Welfare, is in charge of operating the Child Development Centers (CDCs) in Bangladesh. These institutions’ primary objectives for the children in conflict with the law are to offer education, vocational training, medical facilities, and psychological counseling to assist them in reintegrating into society (Ahmed & Iqbal, 2025; Islam et al., 2018). However, there is a clear discrepancy between the declared goals and the actual experiences of the children accommodated in these facilities, according to a number of studies and investigations.

A recent study by Ahmed & Iqbal (2025), “Inefficacy of Child Development Centers of Bangladesh,” critiques the shortcomings of the current reformative framework and highlights the systemic failures of these centers to provide the intended rehabilitative services to the children in conflict with the law. According to reports, the actual population frequently exceeds twice the intended capacity of the CDCs, which were designed to accommodate up to 600 children, resulting in an environment that is harmful to their physical and mental health. Additionally, the centers lack appropriate age-based segregation, and the risk of physical abuse and psychological trauma is increased when children as young as 9 or 10 are housed on the same floor along with older juveniles. Also, most juveniles sent to the CDCs are of school age, so there is no secondary education there. However, they are admitted into technical education instead of secondary education, and the standard of education does not ensure that the children will acquire necessary skills. Unfortunately, there is little access to healthcare, and the only medications offered are substitutes like NAPA tablets for pain and fever.

Hasan (2020), writing in the Dhaka Tribune, reported that Child Development Centers have done little to nothing to assist children reintegrate into society which is one of the fundamental principles of a rehabilitation system. In August 13, 2020, three children were killed in the Jessore CDC, and the report revealed the decades-long brutality of the officials towards the children in conflict with the law. CDCs have been the scene of documented murder and suicide cases, such as in 2011, when a child was killed, and in 2013 and 2019, respectively, when two children committed suicide inside the Gazipur CDC. The investigation on suicide indicates that there were inadequate counseling sessions and motivation to the children. However, bullying and torture by officials and inmates could lead to suicide. It also criticized the correctional process, pointing out issues like the psychosocial nature of the counselors and the irregularity of the counseling sessions. There is a lack of instructors for the traumatized and disabled children. These systemic issues all contribute to a vicious cycle of institutional harm and hinder the CDCs’ capacity for rehabilitation.

Institutional Gaps and Policy Failures

As mentioned in the previous section, institutional and policy-level flaws are at the core of Bangladesh’s Child Development Centers’ operational dysfunction. Budgetary restrictions are one of the most significant obstacles as they seriously compromise the intended framework for rehabilitation.

According to a study by Islam (2021) ‘Social Inclusion and Aftercare Needs of Care Leavers at the Juvenile Correction Centers in Bangladesh,’ stressed that inadequate funding and improper spending plan have a negative impact on clothing, education, healthcare, nutrition and vocational training, all of which are critical to children’s physical and mental development. Even for survival, let alone significant reintegration efforts, the monthly allocation is hardly enough. Additionally, CDCs have inadequate data management systems which are mostly the result of administrative incapacity and overcrowding. This impedes long-term planning and progress tracking for children by adding to a larger institutional lack of accountability and transparency. Lack of interagency coordination is another significant barrier, especially between the Department of Social Services, the judiciary and the law enforcement agency. These gaps frequently result in prolonged detention and delays in the processing of bail which violates children’s right to prompt justice.

Section 16 of the Shishu Ain, 2013 (Children Act 2013) has established one separate Shishu Adalat in every district. however, many districts rely on existing courts such as Women and Children Repression Tribunals instead of setting up independent courts. The lack of dedicated specialized courts causes court proceedings to be delayed and raises the possibility of illegal pretrial detention. Correctional center officers also frequently lack specialized training in trauma care, child psychology and rehabilitative counseling. It is evident that most centers lack the professional expertise and sensitivity needed to work with children who are vulnerable and frequently traumatized. Additionally, the study found that the lack of full-time psychologists and doctors greatly increases the emotional distress of recently admitted children, resulting in feelings of melancholy, loneliness, and chronic trauma because of insufficient emotional and psychological support.

Are Child Development Centers a New Face of Juvenile Incarceration?

Child Development Centers (CDCs) and child-focused laws such as the Shishu Ain, 2013 (The Childern Act, 2013) are primarily designed to ensure the rehabilitation and reintegration of children in conflict with the law into society as law-abiding citizens. In compliance with the Bangladeshi Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), this framework seeks to incorporate both justice and reformative approaches (Khan & Rahman, 2008). However, the crucial question remains: are these facilities merely a more modern form of juvenile detention, or do they also offer rehabilitation?

The current correctional model frequently fails to meet its rehabilitation objectives in practice. With little focus on giving children the knowledge, training or emotional support they need for an effective integration back into society, many child development centers only offer the bare minimum for survival. Children often experience emotional distress during the early stages of detention which damages their trust in the staffs of the correctional center as they are not well trained and equipped to make rapport. Post-release prospects are made even more dire by the extremely limited educational opportunities and lack of structured secondary schooling provisions. Public trust in these facilities’ effectiveness is further damaged by disturbing violent incidents, such as murder and suicide cases that have previously occurred there. The instances of murder and suicide made it worse due to the lack of individuals with specialized training who can handle all the complicated developmental requirements of the children. Despite the legal framework’s emphasis on protection and rehabilitation, Bangladesh’s Child Development Centers (CDC) ultimately function more like punitive detention than true reformation.

Juvenile Justice System in the USA and Europe

The juvenile justice system in the United States is divided into three primary subsystems: corrections, juvenile courts, and police. The police are tasked with responding to juvenile law violations, ensuring public safety, and addressing the immediate needs of young delinquents. Juvenile courts oversee probation, make detention decisions, handle cases of child neglect, and supervise the progress of youths adjudicated as delinquents or status offenders. The correctional system is responsible for providing care, rehabilitation, and reintegration services. Within this structure, four distinct correctional models operate: the Rehabilitation Model which focuses on changing offender behavior to reduce reoffending; the Justice Model which emphasizes proportionate punishment based on the concept of just deserts; the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model which seeks to meet the needs of victims, offenders and communities through restorative programs and supervision; and the Crime Control Model rooted in classical criminology which prioritizes deterrence and societal protection through punitive measures (Bartollas et al., 2017).

In Juvenile Justice in Europe: Past, Present and Future by Goldson (2018) mentioned juvenile justice systems in Europe are typically embedded within broader welfare-state frameworks, combining welfare and justice principles. Many European nations have a long history of prioritizing the rehabilitation model, incorporating education, counseling, vocational training and family involvement into their interventions. According to international standards for children’s rights, detention is only used as a last resort. Instead of heavily depending on punitive sanctions, the emphasis is on avoiding recidivism and addressing the root causes of delinquent behavior through supportive measures that encourage reintegration into society. The minimum age of criminal responsibility recommended by the UNCRC is 14 years and many of the member states from the European Union have implemented it. On the contrary, Bangladesh sets it for all at 9 and 12 at the judge’s discretion (Penal Code, 1860, section 82-83). This welfare-focused strategy closely reflects the rehabilitative principles set forth in the UNCRC and has contributed to the maintenance of lower reoffending rates.

Conclusion and Way Forward

Every nation adapts its juvenile correctional model to the demographic realities of its own. In the United States the restorative justice model, a hybrid system combining punitive measures and reformative approaches, operates alongside the formal juvenile court system. In contrast, many European nations adopt a welfare-oriented model, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. The question for Bangladesh is whether such models can be transplanted into a densely populated country where poverty remains a primary driver of delinquency. A paradigm shift of this magnitude cannot occur overnight; the systems in the U.S. and Europe evolved over decades. Bangladesh must therefore identify its own structural problems and design a juvenile justice system tailored to meet its socio-economic context while simultaneously addressing its existing shortcomings.

Overcrowding in Child Development Centers (CDCs) is among the most pressing issues. While building entirely new centers may not be immediately feasible, the government should at least expand and upgrade existing facilities to meet current needs. The budget allocated to CDCs is insufficient to provide even the basic necessities, and it must be increased in proportion to the children’s welfare requirements. Equally important is the professional development of CDC staff-correctional officers, psychologists, social workers, and medical personnel who must be trained in child-sensitive and rehabilitative methods. A third-party assessment partner may be associated to maintain monthly records, evaluate operational standards, and report findings to the relevant authorities.

Children should strictly be segregated based on their age group. Children aged 9 to 12 should only be taken care of by women or any motherly figure. Education within CDCs must be expanded to include secondary schooling, alongside any of those modern vocational trainings such as ICT and digital skills (basic computer literacy, graphic design and multimedia editing), technical skills (electrical and electronics, refrigeration and air-conditioning, and automobile mechanics), service-oriented skills (tailoring, handicrafts, leather production and food processing), or agro-based & green skills. Given the popularity of cricket and football in Bangladesh, sports hubs could also serve as constructive engagement tools.

Therefore, instead of the child development centers, a boarding technical school can be implemented where children would receive general education and basic training simultaneously. Depending on their aptitude and interest, they can participate in indoor or outdoor sports and be further transferred to sports training centers such as BKSP. However, reintegration after release is crucial, as correctional facilities are merely short-term settings. It is necessary to improve support networks like community reintegration initiatives, family counseling, and continuing education for the betterment of the correction centers.

Reference

Ahmed, S. S., & Iqbal, S. (2025). Inefficacy of Child Development Centers of Bangladesh: The question of Social reintegration of Juvenile delinquents. Social Science Review, 41(2), 213–230.

Ali, I. (2014). The Children Act 2013: A commentary by Justice Imman Ali. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust & Penal Reform International. https://blast.org.bd/content/publications/The-Children-Act%202013.pdf

Apprentices Act, 1850 (Act XIX of 1850). (1850, April 11). https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/1850-04-11-GB-No.19-en.pdf

Bartollas, C., Schmalleger, F., & Turner, M. (2017). Juvenile Delinquency (Justice Series) (third edition). Pearson. ISBN: 978-0-13-454866-1

Bengal Children Act, 1922 (Act II of 1922). (1922). http://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/wb/act/bca1922121.pdf

Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child

Goldson, B. (2018). Juvenile justice in Europe: Past, Present and Future. Routledge. ISBN: 978-1-138-72131-9

Hasan, I. (2020, August 19). Juvenile development centers or torture cells? Dhaka Tribune. https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/nation/220061/juvenile-development-centres-or-torture-cells

Islam, A. (2021). Social Inclusion and Aftercare Need of Care Leavers at the Juvenile Correction Centres in Bangladesh (Master’s thesis, ISCTE-Instituto Universitario de Lisboa (Portugal)).

Islam, M. S., Halim, K. S., Mostary, K. F., Muna, A. T., Khan, B. E. Z., Nupur, A. S., & Saon, M. I. H. (2018). Physical and mental health status of adolescents of Government Juvenile Development Centers in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Medical Journal, 47(2), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.3329/bmj.v47i2.43526

Khan, B., & Rahman, M. (2008). Protection of children in conflict with the law in Bangladesh (Third Edition). Save the Children UK. ISBN: 984-300-001222-6

Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 (Act VIII of 1897). (1897). https://kpcode.kp.gov.pk/uploads/1897_8_THE_REFORMATORY_SCHOOLS_ACT_1897.pdf

The Children Act, 2013 (Act No. XXIV of 2013) (Bangl.) [English version]. https://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/sites/unicef.org.bangladesh/files/2018-07/Children%20Act%202013%20English.pdf