<p>Most studies frame Indian juvenile justice policymaking as an authoritative, outcome-oriented activity of government institutions, expressed in terms of laws and rules through which they seek to address offending behavior by children. This framework tends to reduce the complexity of several policy issues, leading to an overemphasis on either policy change or continuity. Extending interpretive policy analysis, this paper develops an alternative approach to conceptualizing juvenile justice policymaking based on how key official and non-official actors make sense of the policy process. Applied to examine the policymaking process underlying India’s current juvenile justice legislation, an interpretive lens exposes contradictions and incoherence as defining features of juvenile justice policy in the postcolonial setting. The findings shed light on the minutiae of agenda-setting, policy formulation, and decision-making that otherwise escape attention. They reveal that contingency, chance, and contestation lie at the heart of a gradual and fragmented policymaking process involving a wide range of actors operating across different institutional and political locations. In the postcolonial context, these dynamics take distinctive forms shaped by layered institutional legacies, symbolic uses of lawmaking, and competing claims to legitimacy. As a result, policymaking emerges as a liminal space between change and continuity, where elements of reform and continuity coexist in fluid and contested ways. I contend that interpreting the ambiguities, complexities, and ongoing contestation of policymaking in this manner not only deepens understanding of Indian juvenile justice but also contributes to more contextually grounded approaches to interpretive inquiry in the Global South.</p>