Sharafat Ali & Rabia Mustafa
For nearly two decades, children accused of offences in Pakistan were processed under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The Ordinance marked an important beginning. It introduced the idea that children in conflict with the law required a separate legal framework. Yet, over time, its limitations became increasingly evident. Constitutional questions remained unresolved. Implementation gaps persisted across provinces. Meanwhile, international child rights standards continued to evolve, demanding stronger safeguards and clearer procedures from State parties, including Pakistan. Reform was no longer optional; it was necessary and urgent.
The legal controversy deepened when the validity of the JJSO was challenged before the Lahore High Court in Farooq Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan. The petitioner argued that the special protection and concessionary treatment, particularly the prohibition on awarding the death penalty to juveniles, were unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Lahore High Court concluded that the Ordinance had been introduced without adequate deliberation and was fraught with infirmities. It struck down the JJSO, declaring it unreasonable, unconstitutional, and impracticable.
This judgment dealt a severe blow to the juvenile justice framework. The Government of Pakistan appealed to the Supreme Court, which suspended the operation of the Lahore High Court’s decision. As a result, the JJSO technically remained on the statute book pending final adjudication. Nevertheless, the judicial criticism exposed structural weaknesses in the Ordinance and underscored the urgent need for comprehensive reform.
Between 2014 and 2017, the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Human Rights, in collaboration with UNICEF, initiated a comprehensive reform process to redesign Pakistan’s juvenile justice framework. National and thematic consultations were held across Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, and other provincial centres. Policymakers, judges, prosecutors, bar representatives, probation officers, civil society leaders, and international experts gathered around one table to confront difficult but essential questions: How should children in conflict with the law be treated? How could constitutional protections be strengthened? How should diversion be institutionalized? What structure should juvenile courts adopt? And most importantly, how could rehabilitation replace mere incarceration?
These consultations did not simply amend an ordinance. They laid the intellectual and legal foundation for a new statutory regime, the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Act represented more than legislative reform; it embodied a shift in philosophy. It strengthened procedural safeguards, institutionalized diversion, clarified age determination processes, and reinforced the principle of rehabilitation and social reintegration.
