Author –  TIMISHA CHAUHAN, Student at School of Law, Manipal University, Jaipur.

The Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 was amended in 2000 to provide for the protection of children under the age of 18 years. This blog aims to analyze the various facets of the act and its regulation in India. It also explores the various facets of juvenile crime and its effect on the judicial system. The blog analyses how the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act came into being in the context of the immense public pressure on the government due to the Nirbhaya incident. It also explores various facets of the law and the committee’s recommendations.

Keywords: Delinquency, Juvenile Justice Act, Juvenile Justice System, 

Introduction:

“Juvenile” comes from the Latin word “juvenis,” which meaning “young.” A person who has not reached the age of eighteen is referred to as a “juvenile” or “child.” The greatest national resource of any nation is children. What’s more concerning is that the proportion of crimes perpetrated by juveniles in relation to total crime reported in India has risen in recent years. The word “juvenile crime,” sometimes known as “juvenile delinquency,” refers to a minor’s involvement in an illegal conduct. The majority of the elements that contribute to delinquency are abundant in a developing country like India. This blog attempts to emphasize the growth and development of juvenile justice in India, as well as the scope of the types and reasons of juvenile judicial delinquency.

India’s fundamental legal framework for juvenile justice is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Act establishes a unique strategy to preventing and treating juvenile delinquency, as well as a framework for the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of children in the juvenile justice system. This legislation, enacted in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, abolished the previous juvenile justice statute of 1986. This Act was revised again in 2006, 2010 and majorly in 2015.

I. Legal Definition of Juvenile

The term “Juvenile” is used to refer to a child who unlike an adult person, having not attained the minimum prescribed age, cannot be held liable for his criminal acts. Different countries have different standards when it comes to the age when a person is considered a juvenile. The Probation of Offenders Act[1] imposed a restriction on the imprisonment of a person below 21 years of age[2]. Juvenile Justice Act,1986[3], termed a boy less than 16 years of age and a girl less than 18 years of age a “juvenile”[4]. The Juvenile Justice, 2000[5], provided a uniform maximum prescribed age of 18 years for boys and girls to be termed as “juveniles”[6]. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015[7] empowers a Juvenile Justice Board to determine whether a person not having attained the age of 18 years but having attained the age of 16 years can be tried as an adult or not[8] and at the same time it defines a “child” as someone who has not crossed the age of 18 years.[9]

II. Nirbhaya Case

This case involved the gang rape and murder of a paramedical student in New Delhi in December 2012 (Mukesh v. State NCT of Delhi)[10]. During the commission of the crime, one of the accused was 17 years old. Thus, because of juvenile laws at the time, the rapist was not dealt with harshly in comparison with other rapists. Others were sentenced to death. According to the report by the Juvenile Justice Board, there is no evidence showcasing him as being the most vicious offender who committed the crime. Consequently, he was released from the reformation home after 3 years. As a result of juveniles’ heinous crimes and the harsh punishments they receive under Indian law, the juvenile’s case was the most contentious one. Due to the crime’s heinous nature, people raised the demand that the juvenile rapist is considered an adult.

Since he shared a cell with another juvenile involved in the Delhi High Court blast in 2015, intelligence officials suspected the juvenile of radicalizing. The intelligence officials also took this into account when they examined the case of this teenager involved in a gang rape in Delhi. After nearly three years in the correction home, Nirbhaya’s family demanded that the juvenile’s identity be made public a month before he was to be released. Unfortunately, the juvenile’s identity was never released, and despite the widespread outcry, he was released after three years. In the Nirbhaya case, hailed as the most heinous rape in the history of India, this is how the Judiciary acted. Due to the massive outcry in 2015, laws were changed imposing penalties on children in conflict with the law. Later, the Lok Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which states that children aged 16-18 could be treated and charged for heinous crimes as adults.

III. Amendments of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

• There have been many major changes in the criminal system of India due to the Delhi gang-rape case. Following the release of the juvenile convict in Nirbhaya, the Rajya Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice Bill 2014. The Juvenile Justice Act 2000 was repealed by the Indian government on 15th January 2016. These acts protect children from harsher punishments by court districts and high courts if they are in conflict with the law.
• By adopting child-friendly approaches, this Act consolidates and amends the law relating to children in need of care and protection by meeting their basic needs by way of development, treatment, and social re-integration. Among the main objectives of passing the amendment was to curb the heinous crimes committed by the minors between 16 and 18 years of age, such as rape. Here is a brief overview of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.
•  An accused minor older than 16 should present himself or herself to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Board will then decide whether to proceed with the trial as an adult or to send the juvenile to rehabilitation. The decision is based on the physical and mental capabilities of the child.
• In accordance with the juvenile justice act, a minor sixteen to eighteen years of age is considered an adult if he or she has committed any heinous crime. Minor who has committed a serious offense may be tried as an adult only if he is apprehended after the age of twenty-one years.

 If a minor has committed a serious offense and has been apprehended before the age of twenty-one years, he/she is punishable by a maximum of three years in a special home with counselling.

If a minor who is apprehended after age twenty-one for a serious offense will be tried as an adult and jailed for up to seven years.

If a minor commits a heinous crime when they were 17 years old, then they may be tried as children or adults. The punishment is based on the assessment of their mental and physical capabilities.

If the minor committed the heinous crime and was arrested after the age of twenty-one, the case will be tried as an adult, and a 7-year imprisonment is prescribed.

• “A new clause on fair trial has been inserted, under which the evaluation would
• include the child’s unique requirements as part of the notion of a fair trial in a child-friendly environment.”[11]
• No juveniles will be sentenced to life imprisonment or to death.
• The investigation into the matter should be finished within four months of the child’s initial appearance before the Juvenile Justice Board. This can be extended for up to two more months if the cause is given in writing.
• Within 60 days of the child’s initial appearance before the juvenile justice board, the evaluation of the heinous crime should be completed. 

IV. Aftermath of The Delhi Rape Case – Verma Committee[12]

As a result of the ‘Nirbhaya incident,’ the government formed the Justice J.S Verma Committee to look at possible revisions to the Criminal Law to provide for a faster trial and harsher punishment for those who commit heinous sexual offences.

The Verma Committee specifically looked at the question of whether a juvenile’s age should be decreased from 18 to 16 years. The Committee took a reformatory position against the death sentence, life imprisonment, and extended confinement for people under the age of 16. According to the Committee, 

“Our jails do not have reformatory and rehabilitation policies. We do not engage within mates as human beings. We do not bring about transformation… Children, who have been deprived of parental guidance and education, have very little chances of mainstreaming and rehabilitations, with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act being reduced to words on paper.”[13]

It eventually came to the same conclusion, noting that, 

“…the material before is sufficient for us to reach the conclusion that the age of ‘juveniles’ ought not to be reduced to 16 years.”[14]

V. Conflict In Justice: Persuasive Solution.

The growing number of criminal offences committed by minors is causing concern. There are several ostensible flaws in present juvenile justice act.

Juveniles who are fully capable of comprehending their behaviors and emotions represent the evil in society. While decent people do not require rules to live peacefully, evil ones will find a way to get around them. The system of utilizing adult and capable persons who are, in the perspective of the law, minors to commit crimes seems to be lucrative for the negative parts of society. 

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees each citizen the right to a life of peace and dignity. By safeguarding a child who is fully aware of the repercussions of his actions, the Centre runs the risk of infringing on that basic right by protecting a fraction of criminal inclinations. Because the identity and relation to an offence cannot be associated with a juvenile offender, the offender, if not reformed, is capable of operating as a threat to society in rem. 

Keeping all juvenile defendants in one class would result in a multiplying impact of criminal inclinations. Those who have used this loophole, such as the juvenile in the Delhi Gang Rape case, may have a negative impact on the mentality of passive persons, poisoning their brains with criminal proclivities. 

Those who oppose the idea of reducing the juvenile age feel that there should be different levels of accountability and punishment for maturing teenagers based on their different psychological makeups. This, on the other hand, is a contentious but reasonable proposal that might assist society, at least in the current circumstances, when the urgent need to fix and regulate the loopholes into clotting is tremendous. Adoption and adaption of the jurisprudence that the law of the United States and the United Kingdom, amongst other nations, follow, where they condemn minors for the seriousness of their offences while taking into account the individual’s intellectual and emotional development, would be a forerunner to correcting such a flaw in the current conditions.

The ultimate goal of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate rather than eradicate the criminal from society. Natural justice (protection of basic /natural/human/fundamental rights) and personal liberty are the basis upon which such safeguards have been provided. While committing the depravity of sin, a person capable and mature enough to comprehend his acts and their consequences conceals himself beneath the false sheath of law, infringing on jus naturale. The approach of seeing through a holistic lens should be avoided due to the inadequacy of detention houses to handle the expanding number of juvenile offenders. If the rehabilitation process is ineffective, as it is in the current socioeconomic situation of the country, a shift in strategy is required. The author’s arguments do not support the incarceration of innocent souls; but, the emotional and mental development of the juvenile, as well as the social psychology of the juvenile, must be considered before the rigid enforcement of a loosely defined regulation.

Conclusion

India is a developing nation with a growing legal system. In recent years, there has also been a rise in paranoia in society. This fear is of criminals who use their objectives without hesitation because of intrinsic lacunae in our country’s juvenile legislation. Although Indian law accepts the notion of a Juvenile or a kid in dispute with the law, it ignores the independent concept of an innocent child in conflict with the law. It disregards people’ various psyches and sways the blanket of safety explicitly on the basis of one’s age. This gives birth to the profligate satanic overt actions that the Indian public has witnessed in recent years.

The law must be amended, or if that is not possible, the legislative gaps must be sufficiently grounded and covered, failure to which would result in serious consequences.

Reference 

Juvenile Justice Act, 2000

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; http://cara.nic.in/PDF/JJ%20act%202015.pdf 

Commentary on Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015 by Srivastava’s 2021(Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Retrieved from https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-14-notable-amendments-to-the-juvenile-justice-act-2084147  

[1] The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

[2] The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, §6.

[3] The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

[4] The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, §2(h).

[5] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

[6] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, §2(k).

[7] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

[8] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, §18(3).

[9] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, §2(12).

[10]Mukesh & Anr vs State for NCT Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68696327/ 

[11] Retrieved from https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-14-notable-amendments-to-the-juvenile-justice-act-2084147 

[12] J.S Verma and L. Seth and G. Subramanium, Reports of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law (2013)

[13] ibid

[14] ibid