THE Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2015 was finally cleared by the Rajya Sabha on December 22. Having already been passed by the Lok Sabha, it now needs President Pranab Muk-herjee’s assent to become law. The amended bill was tabled in parliament last year in the wake of the public outrage over the 2012 brutal gang rape of a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus in Delhi. Among those charged with the heinous crime was a juvenile who was let off after serving a three-year detention.
The new juvenile bill, which has courted much controversy, facilitates juveniles (16 years of age and above) to be tried and punished as adults for heinous offenses like rape and murder. Critics of the bill have questioned its constitutionality on the ground that it does not adequately protect child rights. Many also feel that the bill violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which mandates that all children under the age of 18 years be treated equally. India is a signatory of the convention.
Votaries of lowering the cut-off age for juveniles are of the view that crimes committed by teenagers are on the increase and leniency should not be shown to those guilty of heinous acts. Harsh punishment, they believe, will serve as a deterrent.
There are several grey areas and varying shades of opinion on this highly emotive issue. MEHA MATHUR and Sucheta Dasgupta collated the views of lawyers, politicians and social workers on the amended bill:
“I am deeply disappointed. The legislation is influenced by lynch mob and media hysteria. Even women’s groups are saying that women’s safety should not be at the cost of putting children into prisons. The two should not be pitted against each other. The juve-nile justice system is not about letting children go free, but about putting them into a separate system. And age 18 needs to be the age for juveniles. We are also working with child sexual abuse victims, and it’s not that we have no understanding of their pain.”
“It’s a very unfortunate and regressive move. They have completely misunderstood that the Juvenile Justice Act was in keeping with the principles of international law, the entire purpose of which was reformative. I represent women victims and I am not sympathizing with rapists, but the Act was based on scientific analysis of the age for juveniles.
Under the new bill it’s the Juvenile Justice Board which will decide the maturity of the person, even though these boards lack the expertise. The parliament has done this without putting proper systems in place. We have only played out to public sentiments which can be uninformed sentiments. And we have only ensured that the problem will get worse as they will turn into hardened criminals.”
“It sets a very unfortunate precedent as no law should be enacted without due diligence. The government should have consulted with women’s groups who work with rape survivors. AIPWA, AIDWA, Pragatisheel Mahila Sangathan, Jagori, Saheli have almost unanimously stood against this bill. It has been our long-held position. The Justice Verma Committee rejected both death penalty and sending juveniles into the adult courts and jails.
The Committee, quoting extensively from studies of international experience, and praising the maturity of women’s organizations on the issue, noted: ‘We have heard experts on the question of reduction of the age of a juvenile from 18 to 16 for the purpose of being tried for offences under various laws of the country. We must confess that the degree of maturity displayed by all the women’s organizations, the academics and a large body of thinking people in the way they have viewed this incident humbles us….We are of the view that the material is sufficient for us to reach the conclusion that the age of ‘juveniles’ ought not to be reduced to 16 years.’ On a more specific note, I would
say the parents’ anger in this case is justified. But retribution does not equal justice for society as a whole.”
“The bill is very problematic. For a deeper examination of the bill as well as the statistics that seem to have necessitated it, it should have been sent to a select committee. If the juveniles leave as unreformed adults, crimes against women will go up as a result of it. It is indeed a tragedy that it has been passed in the Rajya Sabha. The parliamentarians and other louder voices have failed to look at the evidence that would actually reduce crimes against women.”
“I am very happy with the Rajya Sabha passing the bill. I was campaigning for it, despite facing criticism. One problem with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, was that it did not consider the nature of crime. It was not acting as a deterrent. It’s important to bring in a more stringent law. The power to decide on the maturity of the person and quantum of punishment has been given to Juvenile Justice Boards under the new bill. I don’t see a reason to mistrust them. If you are, you are questioning the complete system. Rather than questioning, we should now be streamlining the system. I too believe in child rights but the nature of crime will have to be considered. Rape and murder are not juvenile crimes.”
