Open Access Research Article
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA BY: BRAHMACHARIMAYUM BIJAYALAXMI DEV & PROF. S JAMES
Published Paper
Article Details
JUVENILE JUSTICE
SYSTEM: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA
AUTHORED
BY: BRAHMACHARIMAYUM BIJAYALAXMI DEV
Research
Scholar
Department of
Law
CO-AUTHOR:
PROF. S JAMES (PHD)
Dean
School of Law
& Humanities
Manipur
International University, Imphal Manipur, INDIA
Abstract
Juvenile Justice is a component of criminal law that reduces
criminal liability based on the assumption
that a juvenile lacks the capacity to act maliciously. The conception of
juvenile justice arose from the notion that the challenges of juvenile
delinquency and kids in unusual settings could not be resolved through standard
criminal justice methods. India's juvenile
justice system is at a critical crossroads in its history.
With all of these big adjustments, there is growing
worry that the system has gone from its
objective of rehabilitation and reformation. This essay examines the issues
that the Juvenile Justice System is facing, which are eroding its legitimacy,
and proposes plausible alternatives. The author contends that, while India's
current juvenile justice system can be traced back to colonial rule with many
improvisations, it lacks vitality and does not address the reality of exacerbated
criminal tendencies among the young. The author makes a few recommendations
that will help bring about change and fulfil
the expanding needs of today's
world. The rate of crime
in our society is soaring
at a breakneck pace. While the necessary law is in place, it is at the implementation phase that the majority
of things fail. There is a loud voice within society advocating for strict rules,
and the time has come to address them in order to ensure
greater justice and a more effective juvenile justice system.
KEY WORDS: Juvenile Justice, Criminal law,
Juvenile, Legitimacy, Crime, Reformation, Rehabilitation, Reforms, Strict
rules, Juvenile Justice System
1.
Introduction
In the last
few decades, there has been an incredible rise in the number of crimes
committed by youngsters under the age of 16. The child's rearing environment,
economic situations, lack of education, and parental care are all cited as
explanations for the development of such behaviour in children. Even more
astounding is the fact that children are being used as tools in the commission
of a crime, and this age range includes mainly youngsters aged 6-12 years,
since the minds of innocent children may be controlled more easily at this age.
The protection
of juveniles and an apt treatment for betterment always was the main motive beyond
the drafting of the legislations for the Juveniles in India. Though it always carried
a greater weightage in the minds of the Constitution framers, clear demarcations
of juvenile offenders and general offenders did not find a place in the comprehensive
Articles. Juvenile Justice was first recognized under the colonial rule which was
adopted in the British era and was then later converted to various modern- day
legislations.1
In India, the
need for Juvenile Justice System is felt far more in Delhi as compared to other
major cities. In Delhi, there has been a constant increase in this type of
crime, with the National Crime Records Bureau recording 1,981 crimes in 2015 and
2,368 cases in 2016. According to the data, juveniles were responsible for 46 killings
in 2017, the largest number of homicides across all metropolises, as well as
the highest number of robberies and fraud across all metropolises.
Delhi Police
has implemented programmes such as Yuva, enrolling juvenile delinquents and vulnerable
minors in vocational programmes to prepare them for full time work. The state government
has plans to divert young people away from crime as well. However, according to
reports, these strategies have not been successful. It is possible that the failure
of the Delhi government's and Delhi Police's welfare scheme for children of a
vulnerable age is a result of the city's ranking first in the number of crimes
committed by juveniles in 2017. With 2,677 reported cases, Delhi accounted for 35%
of all such crimes in metropolitan areas in the United States.
1.1
Historical Evolution of Juvenile
Justice
In India, someone
under the age of 18 who has committed a crime is considered a juvenile. There is
a distinction to be made between minors and minors. A minor is someone who has not
reached the age of full legal responsibility, while a juvenile is someone who has
committed an offence or who requires care and protection.1 The Juvenile Justice
Acts of 200018 and 201519 have been both made as a result of the Convention and
is a major trial to follow the convention. However, this trial is not a result of
a day. It is a result of a long- drawn process which can be understood in two
major phases.
1.1.1
Pre-Independence
Differentiated
treatment of children dates all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi in 1790
BC, when the family was entrusted with the obligation of their monitoring and
upkeep. Lord Cornwallis founded the first centre for these children, nicknamed "Ragged
School," during the colonial administration in 1843. After 1850, the Apprentices
Act was created, which was the first law to demand occupational training for youths
between the ages of 10 and 18 who were convicted in court. Another key piece of
legislation was the 1876 and 1897 Reformatory School Act. The Act permitted the
court to imprison delinquents in reformatory schools for a period of two to
seven years, but not after they reached the age of eighteen. Additionally, the Criminal
Procedure Act of 1898 provided for specific handling of minor criminals. Probation
was available to criminals up to the age of twenty-one for good behaviour. The
Indian Jail Committee then drafted the Indian Children Act (1919-1920).
Individual provincial governments gained the authority to adopt separate
juvenile legislation in their own territories under this Act. In 1920, 1922,
and 1924, the provinces of Madras, Bengal, and Bombay each approved their own
Children Acts. These statutes included provisions for the establishment of a
dedicated juvenile justice system.
1.1.2
post-Independence
Following
India's independence, the Constitution included provisions for the protection
and development of children under the fundamental rights and directive principles
of state policy. The Indian government enacted the Children Act 1960. This act made
it illegal to imprison children in any scenario and provided for their care, welfare,
education, maintenance, protection, and rehabilitation. This act applies solely
to Union Territories. This Act established three tire-related institutions. A
residence for observation during court procedures, a children's home for
neglected children, and a special school for delinquent youngsters. The
Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 was enacted to ensure consistency with the
Children Act and to establish a norm for juvenile protection consistent with
the 1959 United Nations declaration of the child. Following these declarations,
the Indian government finally decided to enact the Juvenile Justice Act 2000.2
1.2
Juvenile Justice System
Juvenile
justice is a legal system that is designed to safeguard and promote the human
rights of all children and adolescents. It is a branch of law that deals with
minors / under-aged individuals who have been charged with crimes or who have
been neglected or abandoned by their parents / guardians. It is more focused
with rehabilitation than with adult criminal justice. International standards
highlight the significance of both prevention and rehabilitation in the context
of minors accused of crimes, referred to as juveniles in confrontation with the
law. International standards affirm ‘the right of any child who is claimed to
have committed, is charged with, or is recognised as having committed a criminal
offence to be treated in a way consistent with the promotion of the child's sense
of dignity and worth’. In India, juvenile justice policy is largely guided by
the constitutional mandate contained in Article 15,17 which guarantees special
attention to children through the enactment of required and unique laws and
policies to protect their rights. Additionally, the policy is based on
fundamental safeguards such as the right to equality, the right to life and personal
liberty, and the right against exploitation (enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 16,
21, 23 and 24). The Indian Constitution places a premium on the state's
obligation to protect children from exploitation and to promote their
wellbeing. International Standards and case law also have an impact on the
policy.
2.
Indian Legislations with special reference to Juvenile
Justice Act 2000
Juveniles
have recently been proven to be involved in the most terrible crimes, such as
murder and gang rape. Not all criminals come out of the woodwork at a young age.
Although the causes of criminal behaviour in children are complicated,
delinquency can be predicted quite early in some children's lives. Antisocial behaviour
in the form of adolescent delinquency, on the other hand, is linked to adult
criminality. Early problem conduct, on the other hand, should not be overlooked
for two reasons: it predicts later, more significant difficulties, and if
addressed, even modest interventions may be beneficial in reducing future
delinquency. Children are seen as God's gifts, and it is our responsibility as
parents, guardians, and society to ensure that children are given the
opportunity to grow up in a healthy socio-cultural environment in order to
become responsible citizens. It is the responsibility of the state to ensure
that all children have equal opportunity for development throughout their
lives.3 Responsible individuals with the ability to express and resolve
problems while working together for civic betterment are critical to our
world's future. As a result, children are expected to be obedient, courteous, and
of high quality.10 However, for a variety of reasons, a small minority of children
do not adhere to established social and legal guidelines. Juvenile delinquency,
often known as juvenile crime, is a term used to describe how frequently such
children engage in criminal behaviour.
2.1
Juvenile Justice Act 2000
On December
30, 2000, the President of India signed the Juvenile Justice Act 2000.18 The
Act mandates the care, protection, treatment, development, and restoration of neglected
and delinquent children, as well as the necessary machinery and infrastructure.
The Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 has been repealed.
The Act renamed
delinquent and neglected children as "children in conflict with the law"
and "children in need of care and protection." This Act establishes
the Juvenile Justice Board to provide juvenile justice.
The Act also
establishes a Child Welfare Committee to deal with child-related issues. This Act
addresses children's basic needs and protects their human rights. Infants in
need of immediate assistance may be placed in observing homes or shelters for
the duration of the investigation. The Act prohibits the imposition of death,
life imprisonment, and prison without fine or security. Important aspects of
the Act include removing disqualification and publishing the juvenile's name,
address, etc. in any newspaper or magazine. Section 23 of the Act punishes a
person in actual charge or control of a juvenile for cruelty to a youngster.
Section 26 punishes obtaining a juvenile or minor for dangerous job, keeping him
in bondage, and withholding or misusing his profits. These are all cognizable offences.
2.2
Juvenile Justice and the Indian Constitution
Constitution
is the supreme legislation of the land, outlining the citizens' rights and
responsibilities. The Constitution also contains provisions governing the
operation of the government apparatus. Additionally, Part IV of the Indian Constitution
contains Directive Principles of State Policy DPSP, which are intended to
ensure the society's smooth functioning. And the constitution has the following
provisions about the rights and welfare of children:
·
Article 21A - All children aged 6 to 14 years have the
right to a free and obligatory education.
·
Article 24 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that children
under the age of 14 years be protected from dangerous employment.
·
Article 47 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right
to a decent standard of living and adequate nutrition.
·
Article 39 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the
right to be free from human trafficking and forced labour.
Thus, when lawmakers
drafted the Juvenile Act of 2015, they took into account all of the articles of
the constitution pertaining to the welfare and protection of children's rights.
And for the same reason, Chapter IV of the Juvenile Justice Act contains
various laws aimed at improving and protecting children's welfare, as well as
reforming and rehabilitating juveniles in all possible circumstances4.
2.3
Juvenile Justice with regard
to Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure
Code
The Indian Penal Code was enacted on 1st May 1861 and was widely regarded as the first codification
of law in colonial India. The IPC covered both adult and juvenile offences.
According to Section 82 of the IPC, nothing
committed by a kid under the age of seven constitutes an offence.5 And section 83 of
the IPC states – 'Nothing
committed by a kid over the age of seven but under
the age of twelve constitutes an offence if the child lacks the necessary maturity
of understanding to judge the nature and
effect of this act on that specific
occasion'.
Additionally,
Sections 315 and 316 of the IPC discuss the offences of foeticide and
infanticide. If a person commits an act that constitutes culpable murder and
resulting in the untimely death of an unborn child, the offender will face
charges of Culpable Homicide.
Numerous
provisions of the IPC deal with kidnapping and abduction. Section 361 provides
that if a male minor under the age of 16 or a female minor under the age of 18
is taken from their rightful guardians without their agreement, the crime is referred
to as abduction.
Section 27
of the Criminal Procedure Code21 deals with the clause of – Jurisdiction in
Particular instance of Juveniles; it states that – Any offence not punishable
by death or life imprisonment committed by a person under the age of 16 years
may be tried by a court specifically empowered by the children act to decide on
such matters. Alternatively, it can be addressed by any other law now in place
that provides for the treatment, training, and rehabilitation of juvenile
offenders.6
Section 437
of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that a kid who is in violation of the law
may seek Anticipatory Bail. Justice Narayana Pisharadi of the Kerala High Court
held that a kid involved in a conflict of laws has full rights to seek for
anticipatory bail and that no section of the Juvenile Justice Act precludes
this. A youngster who is in violation of the law may seek anticipatory bail in
the High Court or the Court of Sessions.
3.
Adoption of the Juvenile
Justice Act 2015
The Juvenile
Justice Act of 2015 repealed the
Juvenile Justice Act of 2000,
recognising the need for a better comprehensive and efficient juvenile justice
system that emphasised both deterrence and reformative techniques. The approach
to juveniles should be distinct from that to adults; there were arguments made in Parliament those
juveniles should be allowed more room for transformation, reform, or progress,
which can only be accomplished through the establishment of a separate legal
system. Thus, the new laws, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, placed
a premium on a juvenile-friendly adjudication and resolution of cases. 7
3.1
Key
points of the
Act
The Juvenile
(Care and Protection) Act 2015 defines a kid as a person under the age of
eighteen. The Act divides “child” into two categories:
·
“Child in legal trouble”
·
"Kid in need of care"
Children
under the age of 18 who have committed a crime are classified as “children in
dispute with the law”. 8 A child in need of safety and treatment is specified
in Section 14 of the Act. After the amendment, a person aged 16-18 can be tried
as adults depending on the characteristics of the offence. This amendment establishes
a distinction between a kid and a juvenile, declaring that anyone accused of a
crime and aged 16-18 is a juvenile, and so can be prosecuted as an adult in
court. If the heinous criminal element is missing, the case goes to the
juvenile justice board.
For the courts
to comprehend the need for this change, victims must be recognised for the brutalities
they have endured. The case of Mukesh and Anr vs. State of NCT of Delhi &
Ors, often known as the Nirbhaya rape case, cleared the path for this amendment.
In this case, it was argued that the accused's age should not obscure the
character of his brutality towards the victim. He was found guilty of torturing
the victim with an iron rod, spewing abuse and causing internal ruptures. Due
to the laws' ignorance towards such horrible crimes committed by so-called
“children”, Advocate Shweta Kapoor filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court, asking
revisions to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. “Minds of kids
over 16 who commit significant crimes are well formed and do not require society's
care and protection. Rather, society requires care and protection,” claimed the
PIL.9
The PIL contended
that if a 16-year-old is convicted of a crime, they should be kept in juvenile
justice institutions, but once they turn 18, they should be handled like
regular criminals. It was emphasised that a blanket minimum age allows young
individuals who are perfectly capable of distinguishing between good and wrong
to get away with major crimes.
Another
point worth discussing is the phrase ‘heinous. A person aged 16-18 must be
convicted of a terrible crime to be tried as an adult. Section 2(33) of the 2015
Act defines ‘heinous crimes' as “crimes for which the minimum sentence under the
IPC or any other law in force is seven years or more imprisonment.” In some
situations, permitting a 16-18-year-old to be tried as an adult is a victory
for the Indian judicial system, but the definition of atrocious seems wrong.
The definition is based solely on the length of punishment, not the sort of
offence or characteristics committed.
The rising
rates of youth crime in India are a serious worry that must be addressed.10 Although
the government has enacted different laws and regulations to reduce juvenile
crime, the current laws on juveniles do not have a practical impact on
juveniles, and hence the results are ineffective and the legislative objective
is not being fulfilled.
4.
Critical Analysis
of the present system
All crimes
committed by children
under the age of 16 are dealt
with exclusively by the
Juvenile Justice Board. And all
petty or serious acts committed by minors between the ages of 16 and 18 that
are classified as such under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. In situations
involving 16–18-year-old minors suspected of committing an offence, the Board
is obligated to perform a preliminary evaluation with the assistance of
professional exports in order to analyse the child's mental state and assess
the circumstances surrounding the
offence. Following the evaluation, the
JJB may decide to treat the kid "as a child," or transfer the child to a children's court formed under
the Protection of Children's Rights Act 2005, a special court formed
under the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offenses Act 2012, or a session court.11
When such a child is received,
the children's court must make a new determination as to whether
the child must be treated as
an adult or as a child in the children's court. If it is decided to treat the child as a child, a court order must be issued in that regard. If the child is to be tried as an adult, the children's
court should make appropriate orders
based on the child's requirements.12 The issue with this statute
is that it makes no indication of whether the youngster must serve any time in prison as a result
of the offence. If the child
turns of 21 before the time of confinement expires, the children's court can
determine whether the child has changed and is ready to be freed. If the child
is deemed to be reformed, he or she must be released under the supervision of a
monitoring authority for the remainder of the
stay If they do not reform, they will be sent to jail for the remainder of the original sentence.13
The inherent
flaw of treating some children differently leads to calls for lowering the age
at which a juvenile can be tried as an adult and expanding the list of offences
for which they should be tried, thereby increasing the number of children who are excluded
from the Juvenile
Justice Act's protective umbrella.
The Act with
all its shortfalls is considered as a greater legislation till date in favour
of the juveniles.14
The courts have complemented the provisions of the Act and the functioning of the provisions is hence,
subject to other parameters like the role of police,
justice system machinery
and effectiveness of lower
tribunals and courts.
5.
Conclusion and Suggestions
As a result of
the preceding discussion, we may conclude that treasured ideas alone will not
benefit society. The value of
practical practice must be emphasised. A fundamental flaw in this Act
is the lack of cooperation and oversight among the various authorities. Many
people involved in the administration of this Act, including police officers,
lawyers, and judicial officers, are unfamiliar with the concept and ideology
of the juvenile justice system.
To achieve the desired consequences, the law must be
implemented effectively. The society must be urged to provide sufficient space
and opportunities for children's development and reform. The judiciary has
played an admirable role in ensuring that the juvenile justice system is
properly implemented by interpreting the provisions of numerous statutes
to provide optimal advantage and relief to juveniles.
Juvenile crime trends
can be reversed with serious
implementation of excellent legislation. 15
Few Suggestions includes:
·
The Juvenile Justice Act should be enforced vigorously.
Acting without the assistance of willing arms is inefficient and dangerous. As a
result, the government should make certain that the law is properly enforced by
the authorities. 16
·
For all crimes in India, there should not be a uniform
juvenile age. The system can be constructed to categorise and split the Juvenile
Justice system into various age groups in the same way that it is done in the
United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
·
Cases involving minors should not be transferred to adult
courts. To strengthen their efficacy in giving safe shelter to abandoned and neglected
children, every Juvenile Justice Board must interact with local child welfare
services.
·
Representatives of the Juvenile Justice Board must
work with local child welfare organisations to increase their ability to
provide safe havens for vulnerable children and young people.
·
It is necessary to study the viability of constructing
a non-judicial juvenile justice system.
·
Justice for adolescents who have breached the law
would be achieved by ensuring and increasing the quality of juvenile
correctional services.
·
The juvenile age should not be lowered since it will have
far-reaching consequences for India's criminal justice system that will be
detrimental to the growth of justice and equity.
The deterrence
part of juvenile criminal law must take a back seat to the reforming aspect. Despite
its faults, the 2015 Act straddles the line between the punitive and protective,
ensuring that the juvenile is effectively rehabilitated while simultaneously being
discouraged from violating the law. The need of the hour is strengthening the
other aspects for a better law and legislations for the juveniles in the country.
References
1. SK Bhattacharya,
Juvenile Justice: An Indian Scenario (Regency Publications New Delhi 2000).
2. Vedkumari, The
Juvenile Justice System in India (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2010).
3. Franklin E
Zimring, Langer Maximo and David S Tanenhaus, Juvenile Justice in Global
Perspective (NYU Press 2017).
4. Susan Guarino
Ghezzi, Balancing Juvenile Justice 116 (Routledge 2005).
5. C Roberson,
Juvenile Justice: Theory and Practice (CRC press 2016).
6. PM Bakshi, The
Constitution of India 35 (13th edn, Universal Law Publication 2015).
7. Suhail Sharma,
Juvenile Justice System, Reforms and Policing System in India: Origin,
Dialetics, Comparisons, and Way Forward (Cambridge University Press 2022).
8. Venudhar
Routiya, A critical study of children under Juvenile Justice system in India,
11(04) IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering (2016).
9. DP Farrington,
Childhood Risk Factors and Risk Focussed Prevention, 4 The Oxford Handbook
Criminology 602-640 (2007).
10. Dr Bikram Kumar
Das, Juvenile Justice System in India, 5(5) Indian Journal of Research 1 (2016).
11. Dr
Ratnaprava Barik and Dr Jayanta Kumar Dash, Juvenile Justice in India: A
Historical Outline, International Journal of Current Research 73445-73449
(2018).
12. M Ramachandran
and M Kannappan, A Study on Juvenile Justice System in India before and after
Nirbhaya Case,
13. Sesha
Kethineni, The Juvenile Justice System in India: From Welfare to Rights, 1(2)
Asian Journal of criminology 209-11 (2007).
14. Mr Atul S Jaybhaye,
Critical Analysis of Juvenile Justice System in India, Bharti Law Review (2017).
15. Gautam,
Madhavi, Indian Juvenile Justice System: Child Conflict with the Law, International
Journal of Law Management and Humanities (2020).
16. Pupul Dutta
Prasad, Reimagining Counselling in the Juvenile Justice System, 55(9) Economic and
Political Weekly (2020).
Article Information
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA BY: BRAHMACHARIMAYUM BIJAYALAXMI DEV & PROF. S JAMES
Authors: HBRAHMACHARIMAYUM BIJAYALAXMI DEV, PROF. S JAMES
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/05/01
- Issue 7
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.