JUVENILE JURISDICTION REHABILITATION AND PUNISHMENT BY - ISHAAN CHAWLA
JUVENILE JURISDICTION
REHABILITATION AND PUNISHMENT
AUTHORED BY
- ISHAAN CHAWLA
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The statement of the problem within
the domain of juvenile jurisdiction and rehabilitation, with a specific focus
on child misdemeanors, highlights a pivotal crossroads in contemporary legal
dialogue. Despite notable strides in the development of juvenile justice
systems, a conspicuous gap persists in our comprehension of how to effectively
tackle the distinctive challenges presented by child misdemeanors within the
broader rehabilitative framework. The prevalence of these minor offenses
prompts an essential inquiry into the suitability and efficacy of existing
legal measures and rehabilitative interventions crafted for juvenile offenders.
The present landscape of juvenile jurisdiction may fall short of adequately
addressing the unique circumstances surrounding child misdemeanors,
necessitating an in-depth exploration into the intricate factors contributing
to the commission of these offenses by young individuals. This research
endeavors not only to identify and comprehensively dissect these problems but
also to provide nuanced insights into the deficiencies of the current system.
Furthermore, it aspires to propose concrete avenues for improvement in
rehabilitation processes, specifically tailored to address the complexities
associated with child misdemeanors, thereby contributing to the refinement and
enhancement of the juvenile justice system.
In an era marked by ongoing social
and legal transformations, the discussion surrounding juvenile justice gains
increased importance, necessitating a thorough exploration of the intricate
dynamics inherent in juvenile jurisdiction and rehabilitation. With a specific
focus on child misdemeanors, this research initiative aims to navigate the
complexities shaping the juvenile justice landscape. As contemporary society
grapples with evolving perspectives on youth offenders, there is a growing
imperative to comprehend the multifaceted nature of juvenile jurisdiction. The
prevalence of child misdemeanors not only emphasizes the urgent need for
reassessing current legal frameworks but also prompts a closer examination of
the effectiveness of rehabilitative measures tailored for young individuals
involved in minor offenses. This research paper seeks to analyze and shed light
on the unique challenges presented by misdemeanors committed by juveniles,
unraveling the intricate interplay of legal, psychological, and social factors.
Through this exploration, our goal is to contribute to a more comprehensive and
nuanced understanding of how the justice system can effectively address the needs
of juvenile offenders, guiding them toward rehabilitation and fostering
sustained positive engagement within society.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
·
Examine Current Legal Frameworks: Investigate existing juvenile
jurisdiction laws and policies to understand their efficacy and limitations in
addressing child misdemeanors. Analyze how these frameworks contribute to the
rehabilitation or potential recidivism of young offenders.
·
Identify Factors Contributing to Child
Misdemeanors: Explore
the underlying causes and circumstances that lead to child misdemeanors.
Investigate social, economic, and psychological factors influencing juvenile
delinquency to provide a holistic understanding of the root causes of these
offenses.
·
Recommend Policy Reforms: Propose evidence-based policy recommendations aimed at
reforming juvenile jurisdiction and rehabilitation practices. Advocate for
changes in legislation and policy that prioritize rehabilitation, restorative
justice, and the overall well-being of juvenile offenders.
·
Propose Remedial Strategies: Develop recommendations for
innovative and effective remedies tailored specifically for child misdemeanors.
Consider alternative rehabilitation approaches, diversion programs, and
community-based initiatives that prioritize the individual needs and
circumstances of juvenile offenders.
·
Contribute to Policy Discourse: Publish findings in academic
journals, present at conferences, and engage with policymakers to contribute to
the ongoing discourse on juvenile jurisdiction and rehabilitation. Advocate for
evidence-based policies that prioritize the rehabilitation and well-being of
juvenile offenders involved in misdemeanors.
·
Assess Stakeholder Perspectives: Collect and analyze the viewpoints
of key stakeholders, including legal professionals, social workers, educators,
and juveniles themselves, to understand their experiences and perspectives
regarding the current juvenile justice and rehabilitation systems.
Chapterisation:
I.
Introduction
Concept of
Juvenile Justice, an introduction to the general theme of the research paper.
The focus is on the concept of the Juvenile Justice System in India, focusing
on the notions of rehabilitation and punishment and analyzing the complications
that run around it.
II.
Understanding Juvenility
2.1 Definition of Juvenile And Juvenile
Delinquency
2.2 Claim of Juvenility
2.3 Delinquency Theories
III.
History Of Juvenile Jurisdiction
3.1 The Children’s Act of 1960
3.2 The Juvenile Justice Act of 1986
3.3 The Juvenile Justice (care and protection) Act of 2000
3.4 The 2006 Amendment
3.5 The 2010 Amendment
3.6 The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
IV.
The Positives And Negatives Of The
Juvenile Justice Act Of 2015
4.1 Positives
4.2 Negatives
V.
LANDMARK CASES CONCERNING JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY
5.1 Hari Ram V. State Of Rajasthan &
Another
5.2 The State Of Jammu Kashmir Vs Shubam
Sangra
5.3 Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh Vs.
State Of U.P
5.4 Sher Singh @ Sheru Vs. State Of U.P
VI.
Public Opinion And Survey
VII.
Personal Opinion And Reformation
VIII.
Conclusion
ABSTRACT
As the saying goes, children are the
future of nations, and they are one of a country's most valuable assets.
However, because of immaturity, a lack of knowledge of the nature and
consequences, poverty, psychological problems, and various other social and
peer variables. In this paper, we will begin with juvenile [1]misdemeanors
to gain a fundamental understanding of the reasons for the increasing trend of
juvenile crime rates. We will then briefly discuss the juvenile justice system
in India as well as the relevant international conventions.
Finally, we will provide proposals to
improve rehabilitation approaches in the Indian Juvenile Justice System. To substantiate the assertions, the study
will also make use of relevant case studies. Overall, the goal of this paper is
to assess the existing state of the Indian Juvenile Justice System in terms of
Rehabilitation techniques and if it needs to be developed further for
comprehensive juvenile rehabilitation. As the Indian Juvenile System has concentrated
on rehabilitation rather than punishment, the major driving goal of this paper
will be to determine if such rehabilitation approaches are effective enough or
whether revisions are required. We have issues everywhere, but we should not
let them govern us; instead, we should become the captains of our problems and
solve them.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The most crucial part of juvenile
justice is whether to punish the juveniles or to provide for their
rehabilitation. As we all know, the sentence of a person guilty of a criminal
offense is primarily influenced by three essential considerations: retribution
(penalty), restraint, and rehabilitation. In the case of juvenile offenders,
the principle of rehabilitation is often assigned the greatest weight.[2][3] The juvenile delinquent
rehabilitative model focuses on the counseling/guidance/treatment of the
offender with the assumption that interventions such as probation supervision,
work readiness, incarceration, training, cognitive skills training, and
behavior therapy will change behavior and reduce the frequency of juvenile
offenses.[4][5]
In the Indian legal scenario,
juvenile delinquents are not differentiated based on their crimes to be
punished. The foundation of juvenile justice
philosophy lies in the belief that children differ from adults, necessitating a
distinct approach to the criminal justice system. It acknowledges that young
individuals are in the process of emotional, intellectual, and social
development, indicating that they might not grasp the full implications of
their actions. The juvenile justice system falls under criminal law and is
designed to serve the needs of juveniles who are under the age of 18 and cannot
yet be held accountable for their crimes. Juvenile Justice Laws are in place in
most of the developed countries to ensure that young offenders are treated
fairly so that they can lead a life of peace, morality, and democracy. These
laws apply to those under 18 years of age. Juvenile justice is conducted in
child-friendly juvenile courts.
II.
UNDERSTANDING JUVENILITY
2.1 DEFINITION OF JUVENILE AND JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
The term "juvenile" has its
roots in the Latin word "juvenis," signifying "young."
Broadly defined, a "child" is an individual who has not attained the
age of 18 and is deemed to lack the maturity necessary for a comprehensive
comprehension of ethical distinctions. Numerous legal systems across various
nations adhere to the doctrine of 'Doli Incapax[6],'
asserting that a child is incapable of forming criminal intent to perpetrate an
offense. As per the provisions outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, a
"child" is specifically characterized as an individual below the age
of 18. The legislation makes a clear distinction between children involved in
legal conflicts and those requiring care and protection. On the other hand, a “juvenile” refers to a
person who is below the age of 18 and has allegedly committed an offence. The
Juvenile Justice Act recognizes that juveniles in conflict with the law require
specialized care and protection, and therefore, they are dealt with through a
separate juvenile justice system.
Other laws within the accordance of
juvenile justice system define a ‘child’ in different ways, for example, the
discontinued Indian Penal Code (IPC) defined a child as a person below the age
of twelve years whereas the Pocso Act (protection of children from sexual
offences) of 2012 defines a child as someone below the age of eighteen years.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act of 2023 also defines a child to mean a person
below the age of 18.
There is a key difference between the
terms ‘child’ and ‘juvenile’, a person under eighteen is considered a minor,
suggesting a reduced level of legal responsibility. If a child is accused of
wrongdoing, they are not treated as an adult and are sent to a Child Care
Centre.
On the flip side, a juvenile refers
to someone aged sixteen to eighteen. If a person in this age group commits a
crime, they're called a juvenile offender and might face trial as an adult in
court.
The term "Juvenile
Delinquency" lacks a precise definition. According to several
sociologists, the legal definition of juvenile delinquency is deemed inadequate
in capturing the true essence of the term. Grasping the identity of juvenile
offenders, the reasons behind their criminal activities, and the occurrence of
a child's arrest and conviction may hinge on diverse fortuitous circumstances[7][8].
The official introduction of the term "Juvenile Delinquent" took
place in 1899 when Chicago, Illinois enacted its code on Juvenile Delinquency.[9]
2.2 CLAIM OF JUVENILITY
The “claim of juvenility” question is
a highly debated issue among legal professionals and socialists. The
determination of juvenility is the responsibility of the Juvenile Justice
Board. When determining the juvenile status of an accused individual, it is
advisable to avoid an overly technical approach. In evaluating the evidence
presented on behalf of the accused to establish their juvenile status, if there
are two plausible interpretations of the same evidence, the Court should
incline toward considering the accused as juvenile, particularly in borderline
cases. It's important to note that the inquiry should not be an unrestricted
investigation. The Court has the discretion to consider evidence beyond mere
affidavits, such as documents and certificates, as valid proof of age. However,
several exceptions to this rule are made. For example, running medical tests in
case of exploiting the loophole of fake documents or taking into consideration
the heinousness of the crime committed. The need for a medical age
determination test, specifically a bone ossification test, arises only when the
documents or certificates presented by the accused to support their claim of
juvenility are identified as falsified or tampered with.
Now, we will start looking at the
different delinquency theories to understand why juveniles may or may not be
into these crimes. However, delinquent behavior is caused by various factors
that no single theory can fully explain. Criminologists have picked the most
useful ideas from different theories and put them together to understand crime
and delinquency better. Now, let's look at three main theories on juvenile
delinquency: the anomie theory, the subculture theory, and the differential
opportunity theory.
2.3 DELINQUENCY
THEORIES
Ø ANOMIE THEORY-Anomie
theory for a crime was first developed by Robert Merton in the 1940s. The word
‘anomie’ comes from the Greek word ‘anomos’ which translates to lawless. Merton’s
theory explains that juvenile delinquency occurs because the juveniles do not
have the means to make themselves happy. Due to their constrained perspective,
individuals frequently perceive their objectives as unachievable, prompting a
tendency to resort to illicit methods as a means of accomplishing their
aspirations. Merton’s anomie theory is predominantly utilitarian in nature:
people act criminally because they lack alternative possibilities. In this
context, Merton elucidates on financial offenses like robbery or burglary,
excluding crimes of a more severe nature such as murder or rape. Due to the
lack of access to legitimate means to achieve goals, Merton explains
criminality only within the lower class, because it can be assumed that the
middle and upper classes actually have these means at their disposal. Access to
illegitimate means is not considered. [10][11]According
to Merton, there are 5 responses or ways that people follow in ordinance with
anomie namely- Rebellion, Conformity, Innovation, Ritualism and Retreatism.
Ø SUBCULTURE THEORY- Subculture Theory, introduced by Albert Cohen in 1955, is a combination
of several of his ideas. According to this theory, young individuals who don't conform
to conventional social norms may seek acceptance within a subculture. This
subculture consists of others who also deviate from societal standards.
Together, these groups engage in behavior considered socially unacceptable,
actively rebelling against the accepted norms. In simpler terms, Cohen sees
juvenile delinquency as a result of societal influences. When juveniles commit
crimes, like theft, it's because they are breaking a social rule, signaling
their alignment with the values of their subculture. Subcultural theory is not
an actual learning theory, but rather a hybrid of learning, anomie, and other
theories. Another special feature is that subculture theory only deals with
juvenile delinquency, but not with criminal behaviour in general[12]. The
theory is generally based on the principles of hedonism (momentary pleasure),
malicious intent (the purpose is to annoy or even hurt people), versatility,
and resistance. Cohen’s
subcultural theory highlights that criminals, from their perspective, don’t see
their actions as criminal. Instead, as part of subcultures, they follow
behavioral standards that differ from mainstream societal values and norms.
Therefore, their actions are seen as conforming within their own subculture,
and thus acceptable to them.
III.
DIFFERENTIAL OPPORTUNITY THEORY-Differential Opportunity Theory,
formulated by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin in 1960, suggests that the
availability of opportunities plays a crucial role in juvenile delinquency.
According to Cloward and Ohlin, if young individuals had more chances for
success, they would be less inclined to seek validation from subculture groups.
Furthermore, the theory proposes that factors beyond social influences may
contribute to a juvenile's delinquency. For instance, the theory suggests that
a juvenile might excel in school but struggle to secure meaningful employment.
This difficulty in finding gainful employment could lead the juvenile to engage
in delinquent behavior, not solely due to social factors. [13]However,
what remains a point of contention is that not every crime requires particular
opportunities or specific illegal means to be committed. Acts of pure violence
or kleptomaniac behavior, for instance, can occur anytime and anywhere. The
fundamental idea of Cloward and Ohlin—that criminal acts are primarily
responses to status and adaptation issues—remains open to debate.
IV.
HISTORY OF JUVENILE JURISDICTION
In the contemporary era, there is a
global movement advocating for the unique treatment of juvenile offenders,
extending to developed nations such as the U.K. and the U.S.A. This movement
emerged in the 18th century, marking a departure from the previous approach
where juvenile offenders were treated similarly to adult criminals.
4.1 The Children’s Act of 1960
Following India's independence, the
constitution incorporated provisions within the Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy aimed at safeguarding and fostering the
well-being of children. In 1960, the Indian government enacted the Children
Act, which explicitly prohibited the incarceration of children under any
circumstances. Instead, it focused on offering care, welfare, training,
education, maintenance, protection, and rehabilitation for children in need.
The act, though only applicable in union territories, introduced a three-tier
institution system where observation homes would suffice for the juveniles when
court proceedings were being held, a children’s home for the neglected kids,
and a special disciplinary school for delinquent children[14].
4.2 The Juvenile Justice Act of 1986
The Juvenile Justice Act
of 1986, which replaced the preceding Children Act of 1960, sought to implement
the principles outlined in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of
Juvenile Justice adopted by United Nations member countries in November 1985.
The objectives of the act were to lay down a uniform framework of juvenile
justice throughout the country in a way where the rights and protection of
juveniles are taken care of. It addresses the apparatus and physical facilities
necessary for the care, protection, treatment, development, and rehabilitation
of juvenile offenders along with a special focus on establishing fundamental
provisions for the just and equitable administration of criminal justice in
cases involving serious offenses committed by juvenile offenders.[15]
4.3 The Juvenile Justice (care and protection) Act of 2000
The act offers a
distinctive approach towards the prevention and addressing of juvenile
delinquency, outlining a framework for the safeguarding, treatment, and
rehabilitation of children within the juvenile justice system. Aligned with the
Child Rights Convention, this law replaced the preceding Juvenile Justice Act
of 1986 and underwent subsequent amendments in 2006 and 2010. The act defines
“Juvenile “or “child” as a person who has not completed 18 years of age.[16]
In this act, a juvenile in conflict with the law has been defined as a juvenile
who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed the eighteenth
year of age as on the date of commission of such offence[17].
3.4 The 2006 Amendment
The 2006 Amendment further added a
subsection that states that regardless of any conflicting provisions in
existing laws, this Act shall be applicable to all instances involving the
detention, prosecution, imposition of penalties, or sentencing of juveniles who
are in conflict with the law under any such other legislation.[18]
Other salient features like adoption and claim of juvenility were added to the
Act through this amendment.
3.5
The 2010 Amendment
The 2010 amendment
further dealt with important topics of ailments such as leprosy, sexually
transmitted diseases, Hepatitis B, Tuberculosis, or children with unsound
minds. The Bill eliminates a provision from the existing Act that mandated
separate treatment for juveniles with certain health conditions. Additionally,
it replaces a clause granting competent authorities the power to transfer
children with specific conditions to specialized facilities. Under the Bill,
authorities can only move mentally ill or substance-addicted children if their
condition results in behavioral changes, allowing removal to a psychiatric
hospital or nursing home. If transferred to a psychiatric facility, the
competent authority can subsequently move the child to an Integrated
Rehabilitation Centre based on the discharge certificate from the psychiatric
facility.[19]
3.6 The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
The Juvenile Justice Act of 2015
replaced the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 to establish a more robust and
effective justice system. This revamped system aimed to incorporate both
preventive and rehabilitative measures. Recognizing the unique needs of juveniles
in comparison to adults, discussions in Parliament emphasized the importance of
providing juveniles with a distinct space for transformation and improvement.
The consensus was that a specialized justice system was crucial to giving
juveniles the chance for positive change. Consequently, the new law, the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, was formulated
with a clear focus on a juvenile-friendly approach to handling cases, aligning
with the overarching goal of fostering the positive transformation of young
offenders. Under the preceding legislation, regardless of the nature of the
offense, minors were subject to a maximum sentence of only three years. They
were explicitly protected from being tried in adult courts, incarcerated in adult
jails, or receiving penalties exceeding the three-year limit. However, a
transformative shift occurred with the 2015 amendment. A new principle emerged,
ensuring uniform treatment for all individuals below the age of 18, with a
singular exception. In cases involving heinous crimes, minors falling within
the 16 to 18 age group who stand accused could now face trial as adults.[20]
This alteration represented a nuanced departure from the established norm,
introducing a targeted approach to address the gravity of certain offenses
committed by juveniles. This was after the infamous ‘Gang rape case of 2012’
where one out of the 6 rapists found guilty was a minor (less than 18 years of
age).
The legislation also brought about
the creation of specialized Juvenile courts designed specifically for
addressing offenses involving juveniles. Moreover, it broadened the criteria
defining a "Child in Need of Care and Protection." This encompasses
instances where the child's caregivers are deemed unsuitable or disinterested
in fulfilling their responsibilities, when the child is involved in labor
contravening labor laws, or when there is a potential risk of early marriage
before reaching the legally stipulated age.
V.
THE
POSITIVES AND NEGATIVES OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT OF 2015
4.1 POSITIVES:
The 2015 Juvenile Justice
Act (JJA) brought about significant positive changes aimed at addressing
deficiencies in the previous legislation and improving the overall juvenile
justice system. Some of the important benefits of this Act include:
·
The
clear distinction between children in conflict with the law and children in
need of protection and care is a crucial aspect of the legal framework
surrounding juvenile justice. By recognizing and delineating these two
categories, the legal system can tailor its approach to better address the
specific needs and circumstances of each group.
·
The
mandatory registration of all children's homes represents a significant step
towards transparency and efficiency in the system. This requirement ensures
that these facilities are accountable, meet prescribed standards, and are
subject to regular scrutiny. It helps safeguard the well-being of children by
providing a mechanism for monitoring the conditions and quality of care in such
institutions.
·
The
focus on reducing crimes committed by children between the ages of 16 and 18
acknowledges the importance of preventive measures and rehabilitation for this
age group. By addressing the root causes of juvenile delinquency and
implementing targeted interventions, the legal system aims to steer young
individuals away from a path of criminal behavior.
·
The
provision allowing 16 to 18-year-olds to be tried as adults in the case of
heinous crimes is a contentious but often debated aspect of juvenile justice.
On one hand, it recognizes the severity of certain offenses and the need for
accountability. On the other hand, it raises concerns about the
age-appropriateness of adult legal proceedings for individuals in this age
group. Striking the right balance between accountability and rehabilitation
remains a challenge, and it requires careful consideration of the individual
circumstances and the nature of the offenses involved.
In providing justice to the victims
of heinous crimes, this provision seeks to address concerns about the perceived
leniency of the juvenile justice system in cases where serious harm has been
inflicted. However, it is essential to ensure that the legal process remains
fair and respects the rights of the accused, even when considering the gravity
of the offenses.
4.2 NEGATIVES:
The modified Juvenile
Justice Act (JJA) exhibits certain drawbacks that warrant attention and consideration.
Herein, we delve into a discussion of some of the challenges and issues
inherent in the legislation, shedding light on aspects that may require further
examination and potential refinement.
1. Numerous psychological studies
emphasize the susceptibility of individuals in the 16 to 18 age group due to
hormonal and physical changes. Treating offenses committed within this age
range as criminal acts and placing these individuals in adult prisons may
exacerbate harm. Within such environments, minors may interact closely with
seasoned criminals, potentially impeding their rehabilitation process.
2. A psychological evaluation is
required to determine whether a minor should be treated as an adult, but it is
a subjective process and lacks complete scientific objectivity. The rationale
behind categorizing 16 to 18-year-old minors separately was derived from
information provided by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). However,
numerous critiques question the reliability of this data, highlighting concerns
about the accuracy of the information, particularly since many cases were still
in the First Information Report (FIR) stage and undergoing preliminary
proceedings.
3. Critics assert that the legislation
is overly lenient toward juveniles in conflict with the law and advocate for
more severe penalties for those who engage in serious criminal activities.
Additionally, there are reservations regarding the execution of the Act, with
some contending that the government has not allocated sufficient resources to ensure
its effective implementation.
V.
LANDMARK CASES CONCERNING JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY
5.1
HARI RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN &
ANOTHER: Hari Ram
faced multiple criminal charges, and a dispute arose regarding his age at the
time of the offense, which would determine whether he would be tried as a
juvenile or an adult. The Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 defines a juvenile as a
boy under 16 or a girl under 18, while the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act of 2000 extends the juvenile age limit to 18 for both
boys and girls. The High Court, after considering testimony from Mr. Ram's
father and medical reports, concluded that he was over 16 at the time of the
offense, excluding him from the juvenile justice system. Mr. Ram appealed,
contending that the Court's technical approach to determining his age
undermined the rehabilitative purpose of juvenile justice laws. Additionally,
he highlighted that the 2000 Act had raised the age limit for treating male
children in conflict with the law as juveniles from 16 to 18 years.
The judgment was ruled in
the favour of the petitioner Hari Ram, The Court, upon careful consideration,
acceded to the appeal, thereby reversing the earlier decision of the High
Court. Through its scrutiny, the Court established that during both the
commission of the offense and the enactment of the 2000 Act, Hari Ram was below
the age of 18. As a result of this determination, the stipulations outlined in
the 2000 Act were deemed applicable in his case, resulting in his formal
classification as a 'juvenile' under the legal framework.[21]
5.2
THE STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR VS SHUBAM
SANGRA: Shubam
Sangra, one of the eight individuals implicated in the Kathua gang rape case
involving the juvenile victim Asifa Bano, is confronted with multiple criminal
charges, including rape and murder. Despite his endeavors to present forged
documents, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has thoroughly probed the
matter, leaving Shubam with no success in providing fake documentation.
Shubam's attempt to falsify his age and be treated as a juvenile was thwarted
when the Supreme Court of India decreed that he should be tried as an adult.
Among the other seven accused, one has been acquitted, while three are
sentenced to life imprisonment, and the remaining three face rigorous
imprisonment for five years. This verdict was pronounced by the trial court on
June 10, 2019.
The Supreme Court's
ruling explicitly directs that Shubam be regarded as an adult due to the
failure of his attempts to submit fraudulent documents. Following the hearing,
it was established that Shubam's age falls between 19 and 23 years. [22]Consequently,
Shubam is now undergoing trial as an adult. This landmark decision by the
Supreme Court sets a significant precedent in addressing claims of juvenility.
5.3
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH VS.
STATE OF U.P: This
case involves a dowry death where a woman was killed and burned by three
individuals, including her husband and father-in-law. While the legal
proceedings were ongoing, the father-in-law passed away. During the appeal in
the Supreme Court, one of the accused asserted that he was a minor,
specifically 14 years old, at the time of the offense. The Supreme Court
affirmed the lower court's decision to convict the accused but noted that he
falls within the juvenile category as defined by the Juvenile Justice Act, of 2000.
To determine the appropriate sentence, the case was referred to the Juvenile
Justice Board under the Act. The Court emphasized that the objective of the
criminal justice system in such cases is to provide rehabilitative and
restorative measures for juveniles.
The Court, upon reviewing
the trial court and High Court's findings, affirmed their decision to convict
and sentence the Appellant. However, it determined that the Appellant qualified
as a juvenile or child under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000.
Regarding the sentencing of a juvenile convict, the Court acknowledged
differing opinions. After examining various cases, it adhered to the precedent
set in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of MP 2012 (9) SCC 750. This precedent
asserted that if a juvenile is found guilty based on the merits of the case,
they should not escape punishment. Nevertheless, the determination of the
sentence should be entrusted to a Juvenile Justice Board, as mandated by
Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000.[23]
5.4
SHER SINGH @ SHERU VS. STATE OF U.P: In this case, the appellant, who was
convicted of kidnapping, invoked the plea of juvenility, asserting that his
High School Examination (Matriculation) Record indicated he was below 18 years
of age at the time of the offense. He claimed entitlement to the benefits
outlined in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015,
and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The
Juvenile Justice Board dismissed this plea based on a medical report stating
his age as 19 years during the commission of the crime. After four years, the
appellant filed another plea to be declared a juvenile in the Session trial,
but this request was also rejected and dismissed. Consequently, this order
became final.
The court's ruling underscores the
importance of honoring the decision reached by the juvenile justice system,
deeming it as conclusive. Yet, the judgment explicitly clarifies that this
acknowledgment does not eliminate the right to appeal to the court. This emphasis
on the right to appeal underscores the commitment to ensuring fairness and due
process in the legal proceedings. The court aims to strike a balance, affirming
the finality of the juvenile justice determination while also recognizing the
fundamental right to seek recourse through the appellate process. This approach
is designed to prevent unnecessary prolongation of the legal proceedings,
promoting a judicious and timely resolution of the matter.[24]
VI.
PUBLIC OPINION AND SURVEY
Let us embark on an exploration of
the public's viewpoints regarding juvenile delinquency and the accompanying
rehabilitation process. This exploration was facilitated through a
comprehensive survey spanning various age groups, aiming to capture diverse
perspectives on child misdemeanors and discern the root causes behind such
behavior. Following this, we will meticulously scrutinize the survey results,
delving into an extensive and nuanced discussion to elucidate the insights
gleaned from the data. A total of 36 responses were recorded where people
across different age groups answered the questions put up to them let us
analyze the data in the form of charts below-
RESULTS- The analysis of the charts
reveals a prevailing perception among most individuals that child misdemeanors
pose a definite threat to society and its overall upbringing. Additionally, a
noteworthy inclination towards factors associated with the anomie theory is
evident when respondents were queried about the reasons behind these crimes.
While some express the view that government efforts are insufficient, a
substantial portion either lacks awareness or expresses compliance with
existing government policies. There is a prevalent sentiment of sympathy
towards juveniles, with a preference for a pragmatic approach involving
early-stage therapy and comprehensive moral and formal education. Despite this,
respondents also acknowledge that the imposition of stricter laws and more
severe punishments could instill fear in the minds of potential delinquents. In
summarizing these responses, it becomes apparent that a multifaceted approach
is necessary to address juvenile delinquency, encompassing both rehabilitative
measures and a deterrent factor through legal consequences.
VII.
PERSONAL OPINION AND REFORMATION
The structure of juvenile
jurisdiction in India warrants continuous examination and reform to address
inherent deficiencies that undermine its intended objectives. While the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act provides a framework
aimed at the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders, numerous
loopholes exist within this system, allowing for potential misuse and
exploitation. The current protocols for assessing mental age are frequently
inadequate. Psychological evaluations are not consistently applied, resulting
in significant discrepancies in the treatment of juvenile offenders. Bridging
this gap necessitates the implementation of standardized procedures for mental
health assessments, ensuring that each individual's psychological maturity is
carefully evaluated and considered in legal contexts.
Additionally, ambiguities within the
legal framework can be exploited. Provisions designed to “save” young offenders
can sometimes be manipulated, enabling those with more severe behavioral issues
to evade appropriate accountability. To counteract this, it is essential to
establish clearer guidelines and provide training for law enforcement and
judicial personnel, thereby mitigating the risk of misuse. This includes
defining exploitative behaviors and articulating the corresponding legal
consequences to uphold the integrity of the juvenile justice system.
Lastly, there is a pressing need for
ongoing engagement with various stakeholders, including child psychologists,
educators, and social workers. Such collaboration can foster a more informed
and empathetic approach to juvenile justice reform. A comprehensive strategy
should prioritize not only punitive measures but also supportive interventions
that address the underlying causes of juvenile delinquency, including
socio-economic factors, familial challenges, and mental health issues.
Moreover, important reformation may
include some of the following factors-
Ø Standard Mental Health Checks: Use clear, consistent procedures
for mental age assessments.
Ø Clear Legal Guidelines: Define rules to close loopholes and
clarify consequences.
Ø Training for Law Enforcement: Train police and judges on juvenile
rights and handling cases.
Ø Involve Stakeholders: Collaborate with psychologists,
teachers, and social workers.
Ø Ongoing Review: Regularly assess the system’s
effectiveness and make necessary changes
VIII.
CONCLUSION
The objective of the Juvenile Justice
System is to offer specialized care and safeguarding for young offenders,
recognizing that children are not fully developed like adults and may not grasp
the complete nature and repercussions of their actions. The system prioritizes
the reformation and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders over punitive
measures, taking into account the best interests of the child. Certainly,
within our legal framework, we find a comprehensive set of laws, rules, and
regulations designed to articulate and facilitate effective rehabilitation methods.
However, upon careful examination of the practical application, a discernible
gap emerges, indicating a deficiency in the successful implementation of the
model laws and legislations at our disposal. This shortfall raises critical
questions about the actualization of the intended rehabilitative measures and
points towards the need for a more robust and efficient enforcement mechanism
to bridge the gap between theory and practice in our legal system.
Efficient scrutiny of the proper
follow-up and record-keeping for juveniles on probation is lacking. With the
surge in new-generation crimes like cybercrimes, predominantly involving young
offenders, it is imperative to update and modify Indian Juvenile Rehabilitation
Practices to enhance their effectiveness.
While the judiciary has notably
established precedents by dismissing claims of juvenility designed to exploit
legal technicalities, cases such as the 2012 Nirbhaya incident continue to cast
a shadow over the collective consciousness of society. In this tragic episode,
a juvenile perpetrator inflicted significant harm and evaded appropriate
consequences due to the absence of a provision allowing for the accountability
of his actions. It is strongly recommended that the Juvenile Justice Act adopts
a more pragmatic approach, consistently incorporating additional rules and
regulations. The well-known adage "precaution is better than cure" is
particularly relevant when advocating for ongoing modifications and periodic
reviews of the act to ensure its sustained pertinence and efficacy in
addressing evolving challenges.
[2] Piquero A, Steinberg
L. Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Public
Preferences in Four Models for Change States
[3] General principles of juvenile
justice, welfare v/s justice models https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5288089/#R11
(available and visited on August 16,2024
[4] Mr. Shubham Kumar Singh (LL.M),
“Critical Analysis of Juvenile Justice System in India with Special
Emphasis on Juvenile Delinquency & Rehabilitation
Methodologies”, Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Available at https://www.lawaudience.com/critical-analysis-of-juvenile-justice-system-in-india-with-special-emphasis-on-juvenile-delinquency-rehabilitation-methodologies/#google_vignette
(last visited August 16, 2024)
[5] Juvenile crime juvenile justice
chapter 5 – the juvenile justice system
[6] Defined under us department of
justice
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/doctrine-doli-incapax
(available and visited on August 16, 2024)
[7] Mr. Shubham Kumar Singh (LL.M),
“Critical Analysis of Juvenile Justice System in India with Special
Emphasis on Juvenile Delinquency &
Rehabilitation Methodologies”, Chanakya National Law University, Patna
[8] Laub, The onset of adult
offending—a neglected dimension of the criminal career. Journal of Criminal
Justice,p. 30, 2002
[9] S.M. Afzal Qadri, Criminology, penology and
victimology, Eastern book Company, p. 78,7th Edition, 2016.
[10] Merton, R. K. (1938) Social
Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, Vol. 3, No. 5 (Oct., 1938),
S. 672-682
[11]Social structure and anomie,
available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2084686
(last visited August 16, 2024)
[12] Subculture theory (Cohen)
available at
https://soztheo.de/theories-of-crime/learning-subculture/subcultural-theory-cohen/?lang=en
(last visited August 16, 2024)
[13] Theory of differential
opportunities (Cloward & Ohlin), available at
https://soztheo.de/theories-of-crime/learning-subculture/theory-of-differential-opportunities-cloward-ohlin/?lang=en
(last visited August 16, 2024)
[14] juvenile law in India available
at
https://www.lawyered.in/legal-disrupt/articles/history-juvenile-justice-system-india/
(last visited August 16, 2024)
[15] The Juvenile Justices Act, 1986-
Explanation in Brief available at
https://thelawmatics.in/the-juvenile-justices-act-1986-explanation-in-brief/
(last visited August 16, 2024)
[16] Section 2(k) of Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[17] Section 2(l) of Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[18] Sub section 1(ii)(4) of juvenile
justice (care and protection of children) Act 2000 (amended in 2006)
[19] The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2010. Available at
https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-juvenile-justice-care-and-protection-of-children-amendment-bill-2010
(last visited August 16, 2024)
[20]
The juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act of 2015
[22] The state of Jammu and Kashmir and others (now UT of Jammu and Kashmir)
vs. Shubam Sangra (2022) SCC 11220
[23]
Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh vs. State of U.P (2013) SCC 763
[24]
Sher Singh @ Sheru vs. State of U.P (2016) Allahabad High Court 1883