Open Access Research Article
Response Of The Indian Legal System Towards Juvenile In Conflict With The Law
Published Paper
Article Details
RESPONSE OF THE INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM TOWARDS JUVENILE IN
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
AUTHORED
BY: THESNEEMA KP
BA LLB, LLM
School of
Legal Studies - CUSAT, Kerala
INTRODUCTION
“The true measure of any society can
be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members” -Mahatma Gandhi.[1]
Juvenile justice is a system of law
introduced to protect and promote the human rights of all Juveniles. The primary
objective of the Juvenile justice system deals with the care, protection,
treatment, development, and rehabilitation of neglected and juvenile delinquents.
Therefore, the juvenile justice system falls within the ambit of the
administration of the criminal justice system. The term ‘juvenile’ originated
from the Latin term ‘juvenile’, which means ‘young’; hence, childhood is the
main factor in the juvenile justice system. The primary purposes of these legal
systems are rehabilitation, justice, and the protection of children’s rights. According
to these legal systems, juveniles accused of offences are known as juveniles in
conflict with the law. International standards emphasize the importance of preventing
and rehabilitating these juveniles who conflict with the law.
India’s approach to the juvenile
justice system promotes establishing the legal framework for dealing with
juveniles in conflict with the law, through which it supports differential
treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration, child-friendly procedures,
protection of their rights, etc. There is no other country in the world that
embraces such an extraordinary profusion of ethnic groups, mutually incomprehensible
languages, topography and climate, religions and cultural practices, and levels
of economic development. This largest democracy in the world is also home to
the largest number of children in the world[2]. Hence,
India’s approach to juvenile justice shows or reflects a commitment to
promoting the welfare and rehabilitation of children in conflict with the law.
However, despite these efforts, criticism persists regarding the effectiveness
of existing legislation. This raises the question of whether India has
adequately met the need for significant juvenile justice laws.
THE NECESSITY
OF A UNIFORM LAW FOR ADDRESSING JUVENILE MATTERS IN INDIA
The evolution of legislation in India
regarding juveniles in conflict with the law was passed in 1850, i.e., the Apprentices
Act was introduced to keep juveniles out of jails. Later, the Report of
All-India Jail Committee in 1919-1920 recommended that children be separated
from the existing criminal justice system. Through the Apprentices Act of 1850,
children between the ages of 10 and 18 who were vagrants or committed minor
offences were required to serve their sentences as apprentices. After the
enactment of the Indian jail committee, the British Govt established separate
institutions to have individual state legislate trials. In connection with
this, many new acts were introduced in different regions of India.
After the constitution's enactment, the
Children Act 1960 was established as a model for various state legislations. It
became the basis for the central law passed as the Juvenile Justice Act 1986.
Later in the case of Sheela Barse’s case[3],
it was crucial to get the uniform juvenile justice law passed since it declared
that kids in detention should get special treatment and suggested that the
parliament create a uniform law that would apply nationwide. Thus, the Juvenile
Justice Act of 1986 was established for the first time to require improved
treatment, care, and development for neglected and delinquent youth as well as
to adjudicate juvenile delinquency cases across the nation. The 1986 Act was
primarily designed to align domestic law with the UN Standard 1985. However,
this goal was met, so the Act underwent numerous revisions and replacements.
EXAMINING
INDIA’S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM: AMENDMENTS AND CASE LAWS
In India, the legal system has evolved
significantly in its response to juvenile offenders, shaped by domestic
legislation, international conventions, and judicial interpretations. In the
early stage, the Indian legal system recognized juveniles' unique
vulnerabilities and developmental needs, establishing separate juvenile justice
mechanisms. The Juvenile Justice Act of 1986, later initiated by the JJ Act in
2000, laid the foundation for a rehabilitative approach to juvenile justice, emphasizing
children's welfare and best interests. Later, the Nirbhaya case 2012 prompted
public outcry and calls for stricter measures against juvenile offenders,
particularly in cases involving serious crimes. The Juvenile Act was amended in
2015 to allow trials of heinous crimes committed by juveniles above sixteen
years, which was newly introduced in this Act. So, this JJ ACT 2015 discusses
the controversial provision of ‘transferring’ children between 16 and 18 years
accused of “Heinous Offences” to the adult criminal justice system.
Thus, India is actively working to
improve its laws relating to children in conflict with statutes by adding new
provisions multiple times, along with the evolution of thinking about children
and international documents to which India is a signatory. The Juvenile Justice
Act has seen numerous amendments in 2000,2006 and 2015. Also, the Lok Sabha
introduced the Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2021, aiming to enhance and simplify
measures for protecting and adopting children. These amendments underscore India's
need for an improved juvenile justice system.
To gain better knowledge, we need to evaluate the
effectiveness of the amendments made to these Acts through case laws and consider
whether India has successfully established a juvenile justice system to address
delinquent acts committed by minors.
JUVENILE
JUSTICE ACT 1986
·
This
Act offers a highly legalistic definition of juvenile, setting the age limit at
16 years for boys and 18 years for girls. The reason for this difference in
consideration of age is the patriarchal nature of society, where women have
limited freedom to make decisions about their own lives.
·
Children
were categorized as delinquent juvenile and neglected juvenile
Here, separate institutions are
created to house these two categories. Differentiating between neglected and delinquent
juveniles can be challenging because, in reality, it is different to determine.
The juvenile welfare board dealt with the neglected juvenile, whereas the
delinquent juvenile was brought before the juvenile court. Moreover, this does
not have any specified provision or does not directly deal with any provision
relating to child sexual abuse.
Later, Govt of India ratified the CRC
in 1992, thereby making it expedient to adhere to the standards prescribed in
the convention. Hence, the 1986 JJ Act had to be reviewed, and changes had to
be made to secure the child's best interests and focus on the social
reintegration of the child without resorting to judicial proceedings. The JJ
Act 1986 was repealed, and a new JJ Act 2000 was introduced, which considered
all the international standards prescribed per the Convention on the Rights of
the Child.
SHEELA
BARSE V. UNION OF INDIA[4]
A petition was filed asking the
courts to release children under 16 years of age kept in jails in different
states. The central issue in this case was whether the children under 16 years
of age who are kept in prisons are poorly treated and abused or not. The
Supreme Court observed that it is a settled principle in law that children must
not be confined to prisons like adult criminals, as it would have harmful
effects on them that would affect their growth and development. The court also
issued several directions to improve the JJ system, including better living
conditions in detention, etc.
JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2000
·
Under
the JJ Act of 2000, the proceedings should be informal and child-friendly.
Keeping in mind the needs of children, separate Juvenile Justice Boards have
been set up.
·
The
Act establishes a uniform age criterion for both boys and girls, encompassing
any individual who has not yet reached the age of 18. This aligns with the
definition of a child as per the Convention on the Rights of Child (CRC)
·
This
act mainly recognised the importance of restoring children to their families as
long as it was in their best interest. It also outlines four options of
restoration for children in children’s homes and unique homes, which include
adoption, foster care, sponsorship and aftercare.
In this case,
the appellant faced charges related to causing the death of a person through
poisoning. Initially, when the appellant was produced in court, he was 18
years old. However, it was alleged that he was a juvenile
at the time the crime was committed. The primary issue was the determination of
the age of juvenility. Whether the date of occurrence (i.e., date of committing
the crime by the accused) is the correct date for the determination of the age
of juvenility of the date of production (i.e., date of production of the
accused before the Court; So, here when the case was transferred to the
juvenile court, where his certificates were examined, and it was determined that
he was a minor on the date the crime occurred, consequently, he was released on
bail.
The decision
regarding the age of juvenility was further upheld by the High Court of
Jharkhand, which emphasised that school certificates
serve as the best evidence in such cases. However, the Supreme Court
took a different stance by upholding the decision of Umesh Chandra v. State of
Rajasthan (1982). It held that the date of crime should be the
criterion for determining juvenility.
Another
important aspect of this case was the applicability of the Juvenile
Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children), 2000. Although the case
was initially filed under the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986,
the 2000 Act had replaced it by the time it reached the Supreme Court. Relying
on the precedent set by the Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar case, the Supreme Court held
that the 2000 Act would apply to cases pending in any court or authority under
the 1986 Act. Additionally, cases still pending when the 2000 Act was enforced,
where the person had yet to complete 18 years of age, would be decided
according to the 2000 Act.
HARI RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[6]
Hari Ram was accused,
which raised questions about whether he should be treated as an adult or
juvenile. Initially, it was determined by the court that Hari Ram's age was
below 16 at the time of the crimes when it referred to the juvenile board. Later,
his father’s testimony and the medical report concluded that Hari Ram was above
16 when the offences were committed, thus excluding him from juvenile status.
The Supreme
Court addressed the issue of which law should apply to Hari Ram's case. Despite
the High Court's ruling, the Supreme Court held that all pending cases should
be governed by the 2000 Act, which extended juvenile status up to 18 years.
Consequently, Hari Ram was deemed a juvenile under this Act, impacting the
handling of his case.
When considering
these judgments and the JJ Act, it determines the age of juveniles in cases
related to the Juvenile Justice Act and observes several challenges. One of the
main problems is consistency or the need for clarity in the methods used to
ascertain the age of the accused juvenile. Additionally, the JJ Act has
undergone amendments over time, leading to changes in the criteria and
procedures for determining juvenile age. This can promote clarity and
consistency in the application of law, especially in situations where different
versions of the Act might apply.
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE &
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) AMENDMENT; ACT 2006
·
This
act differentiated two categories of children:
(i)
Those
who need care and protection
(ii)
(ii)
those who conflict with the law. Here, the Child Welfare Committee was set up
for children needing care and protection, and the Juvenile Justice Board was
created for children in conflict with the law.
·
The
Act mentioned establishing Children's homes for children in need of care and
protection, Special homes for children in conflict with the law, and
observation homes for children who were housed only temporarily until their
cases were pending with the Boards or Committees. Subsequently, the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection) Rules of 2007 were introduced to implement the
Act of 2006.
JARNAIL SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA[7]
Here, the accused was charged with
taking the prosecutrix away from her parents and committing forceful sexual
intercourse with her. The case involved issues related to the accused's age and
whether he should be treated as an adult or a juvenile. He was sentenced to ten
years of rigorous punishment along with a fine by the sessions court. The
accused, being the aggrieved party, appealed the decision. Moreover, he argued
that it was proven that the accuser was a minor. The Supreme Court, in this
case, held that the rules determining the age of a juvenile through the
Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, can be applied in cases connected to the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, as well.
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE &
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) AMENDMENT ACT 2015
The Women and Child Development
Ministry of the Government of India introduced the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Bill in 2014 in the Lok Sabha in August of the same
year. This was done in the aftermath of the Nirbhaya gang rape case in Delhi
and the increase in juvenile crimes, especially within the age group of 16-
18 years.
PROBLEMS WITH JJ ACT 2000:
·
Section
2(k) of the JJ Act 2000 defined “juvenile” or “child” as meaning a person who
has not completed the eighteenth year of age;
·
Further,
Section 2(l) defined a “juvenile in conflict with law” as a juvenile
·
Alleged
to have committed an offence. Furthermore, Section 2(p) defined an “offence” as
meaning an offence punishable under any law for the time being in force;
·
·
The
central problem of the JJ Act 2000 is that it covers within its ambit any
person under 18 years who is alleged to have committed any offence under any
extant law. Mainly, no distinction was made between any class of offences. Nor
was there any sub-classification between different age groups, such as ages 1
to 12, 12 to 16, 16 to 18, etc.
MUKESH AND
ANR V. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS[8] (NIRBHAYA CASE)
This case involved a gang rape;
during the commission of the crime, one of the accused was 17 years old. The central
issue is whether he should be treated as a juvenile or an adult. Thus, because
of juvenile laws at the time, JJ Act 2000, the rapist was not dealt with
harshly in comparison with other rapists. Others were sentenced to death. He
was tried as a juvenile offender under the then-extant Juvenile Justice Act,
2000 (“JJ Act, 2000”) and sentenced to the statutory maximum of 3 years in a
reformation centre, including the eight months he spent in remand pending trial.
As a result of juveniles’ heinous crimes and the harsh punishments they receive
under Indian law, the juvenile’s case was highly debated. Due to the crime’s
heinous nature, people raised the demand that the juvenile rapist is considered
an adult. 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 explains that children
aged 16-18 could be treated and charged for heinous crimes as adults.
Here, legislature acceded to this
public sentiment when Parliament passed the Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, wherein a new class of juveniles was created
who, in cases of “heinous offences”, could be tried and sentenced as
adults.
THE MAJOR AMENDMENTS OF THE JJ ACT,
2015
The main objective is to pass this JJ
ACT 2015 was to curb the heinous crimes committed by the minors between 16 and
18 years of age, such as rape.
·
Heinous
crimes: sec 2(33) of IPC defines any offence for which minimum punishment is
imprisonment for seven years or more. Some examples; Murder, rape, kidnapping
for ransom, dowry death, gang rape, acid attacks, child sexual abuse, and terrorism.
NEW
CHANGES THROUGH JJ ACT, 2015:
·
A
minor 16- 18 years of age is considered an adult if they have committed any
heinous crime. Minors who have committed serious offences may be tried as
adults if apprehended after age twenty. But if he committed the horrific crime
at the age of a minor, he may be tried as a child or adult, depending on their
mental and physical capabilities. Therefore, it deals;
a. If a minor commits a serious offence
and is apprehended before turning 21, they may face a max of 3 years in a unique
home with counselling
b. If apprehended after turning 21 for a
serious offence, the minor will be tried as an adult and could face up to 7 years
in jail
c. For heinous crimes committed at 17,
the minor may be tried as a child or adult, depending on their mental and
physical capabilities.
d. If arrested after turning 21 for a heinous
crime, the case will be tried as an adult, with a possible seven years
imprisonment
·
No
juvenile will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death
·
The
evaluation of the heinous crime must be completed within 60 days of the child’s
initial appearance before the JJ Board.
These are the significant changes
that show that India needs to change the juvenile system to meet the changing
needs of society.
PARAG
BHATI (JUVENILE) THROUGH LEGAL GUARDIAN V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [9]
The accused, in this case, was
arrested for the offence of murder and kept in a juvenile home. His father applied
to his age, stating that he is a minor. Various school certificates also
supported this. However, after scrutinizing the certificates, the Juvenile
Justice Board had doubts regarding his juvenile, and the accused was referred
to the medical board to examine and determine his age. The medical board opined
that he was a major, so his case was transferred to the court of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate.
The Supreme Court, on the issue of
determination of juvenility, held that the principle of juvenile under the Act
would be applicable only in cases where the accused is prima facie a minor. The
present case deals with a severe, well-planned offence that depicts the
maturity of the accused, who is not innocent. The plea of juvenility in this
case was held to be of a nature to dodge the law in place.
SAMPURNA
BEHURA V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS[10]
Sampurna Behura initiated a writ petition
against the Union of India and others. This case dealt with implementing the
Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 and 2015. The Supreme Court observed that the
State needs to ensure that the Juvenile Justice Act is adequately implemented
to deal with the needs of children in society. The court also recommended that
Chief Justices of each High Court consider establishing child-friendly in
court. And vulnerable witness courts. So, these are the significant changes in the
juvenile justice system.
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT AMENDMENT IN
2021 AND AN ANALYSIS
The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Bill, 2021 has been passed by Lok Sabha on 24 March,
2021 and thereafter the Rajya Sabha also the same on 28th day of
July 2021[11]. The
main objective of this Bill is to strengthen the child protection at district
level, to empower District Magistrate, to strengthen Child Welfare Committee
etc. But so far as the age of juvenile or child in need care and protection is
concerned, the Bill does not propose any change or amendment of the same. This
Bill seeks to amend the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
of 2015. The major highlights of the Bill;
·
The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015 states that
adoption of a child is final on the issuance of an adoption order by the civil
court. The Bill provides that instead of the court, the district magistrate
(including additional district magistrate) will issue such adoption orders.
·
Under
the 2015 Act offences committed by Juveniles are categorised as heinous
offences, serious offences, and petty offences. Serious offences include
offences with three to seven years of imprisonment. The Bill adds that serious
offences will also include offences for which maximum punishment is
imprisonment of more than seven years, and minimum punishment is not prescribed
or is less than seven years.[12]
·
The
District Magistrates have been further empowered under the Act, to ensure its
smooth implementation, as well as garner synergized efforts in favour of children
in distress conditions. As per the amended provisions of the Act, any Child
Care Institutions shall be registered after considering the recommendations of the
District Magistrate. The DM shall independently evaluate the functioning of
District Child Protection Units, Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice
Board, Specialized Juvenile Police Units, Child care institutions etc.
·
The
eligibility parameters for appointment of CWC members have been redefined.
Criteria for disqualification of CWC members has also introduced to ensure that
only the persons capable of rendering quality service with requisite competence
and integrity are appointed to CWC.
·
Several
difficulties faced in implementation of various provisions of the Act have also
been addressed and Suitable amendments to remove these difficulties arising in
the interpretation of various provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and to clarify the scope of certain
provisions of the Act have also been introduced.[13]
While the new act has performed a herculean
task of straightening out the main issue of the antecedent act that came into
being in 2015, it does not in any way mean that this act too does not have its
own share of fallacies. There is a pressing need to close the procedural
loopholes that now exist while simultaneously ensuring that justice is
delivered swiftly and fairly.[14] Therefore,
considering this amendment, India’s stance on the Juvenile Justice system
remains pivotal, leading to various amendments reflecting the evolving
landscape of the legal framework at both domestic and international levels.
CONCLUSION
The Juvenile Justice System has
evolved in the country in response to international and domestic understanding
of children and their deviancy. Quantitative estimates have provided a backdrop
against which changes have been initiated. The nature and incidence of crimes
committed by children have changed. The Juvenile Justice system has considered
this and altered the legislation's provisions. Over time, the system has emphasized
monitoring and implementing the requirements and recognised its limitations, further
leading to amendments. The main aim of the system is to rehabilitate children
who are either deprived or have come into conflict with the law. Very often,
children fall under both of these categories. So, it becomes crucial that
children are handled with care to avoid recidivism and become responsible
citizens of the country.
Implementing these amendments to the
juvenile justice system enhances the efficacy of current law, prompting the
question of whether India still needs to strengthen its juvenile justice
legislation further. Evaluating this aspect, India has made significant progress
in fulfilling its need to protect juveniles through legislative amendments and
case laws. However, despite these improvements, challenges in implementation
and consistent application of laws across different regions persist; therefore,
continuous efforts are needed to address these challenges. Consequently, the way
the Indian legal system handles juveniles involved in legal disputes highlights
the necessity of India to refine its system by incorporating modification,
drawing on various international documents and adapting to societal shifts.
[1] Quotefacny, https://quotefancy.com/quote/856011/Mahatma-Gandhi-The-true-measure-of-any-
society-can-be-found-in-how-it-treats-its-most (last visited June 2, 2024).
[2] Asha Bajpai, Protecting India’s Children:
Vulnerabilities and Challenges, 29 Macalester International, p. 59 (Spring
2012).
[3] 1983 SC 378.
[4] Ibid.
[5] (2005) 3 SCC 551.
[6] (2009) 13 SCC 211.
[7] 2013
(7) SCC 263.
[8] (2017) 6 SCC 1.
[9] (2016) 12 SCC 744.
[10] W.P (C)
NO 473 OF 2005.
[11] Live Law.in, Parliament Passes Juvenile Amendment
Bill To Strengthen Child Protection; Empower District Magistrates To Authorise
Adoption Order, available at https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/parliament-passes-juvenile-justice-amendment-bill-2021-178328
(last visited June 2, 2024) quoted in Dr.
Sandeep Kumar, Juvenile Justice system in India: An Overview, 9 J. Emerging
Tech.& Innovative Research. Para.4.14 (2022).
[12] PRS Legislative Research, Legislative Brief,
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2021, available
athttps://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2021/Legislative%20Brief%20Juvenile%20Justice%20Amendment%20Bill,%202021.pdf
(last visited June 2, 2024).
[13] Ministry of Women and Child Development, “Parliament
Passes Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2021,
“Press Release, (visited June 2, 2024), available at https://pib.gov.in?PressRealsePage.aspx?PRID=
1740011.
[14] Tanya Jain, “A Critical Review of the Juvenile
Justice Amendment Act, 2021,” The Amikus Qriae, available athttps://theamikusqriae.com/a-critical-review-of-the-juvenile-justice-amendment-act-2021/
(visited June 2, 2024).
Article Information
Response Of The Indian Legal System Towards Juvenile In Conflict With The Law
Authors: Thesneema Kp
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/17
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.