WHO IS A JUVENILE?

ACCORDING TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT, 1986 DEFINES ‘A JUVENILE OR CHILD, WHO IN CASE OF BOY HAS NOT COMPLETED AGE OF 16 YEARS AND IN ACSE OF A GIRL 18 YEARS OF AGE.’

ACCORDING TO THE JUVENILE CARE AND PROTECTION ACT, 2015, DEFINES THE WORD “CHILD” WHICH “MEANS A PERSON WHO HAS NOT COMPLETED 18 YEARS OF AGE”.

REASON FOR THE NEED OF CHANGE IN THE LEGISLATION:

THE FIRST LEGISLATION JUVENILES WAS THE APPRENTICE ACT,1850 WHICH PROVIDED THAT CHILDREN IN THE AGE GROUP OF 10-18 YEARS CONVICTED BY COURTS TO BE PROVIDED WITH SOME VOCATIONAL TRAINING WHICH MIGHT HELP IN THEIR REHABILIATION AND REFORMATION. AFTER THE 2012 NIRBHAYA CASE, PUBLIC OUTCRY TO PUNISH THE JUVENILE INVOLVED LED

TO A CHANGE IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT.IT WAS WHEN THE EXISTENCE OF LUCUNA WAS FELT IN THE PRESENT JUVENILE SEEN AND THEREFORE IT REQUIRED AN URGENT AMENDMENTS.A 23-YEAR OLD WOMAN WAS BRUTALLY ASSAULTED & GANG-RAPED IN A MOVING BUS IN SOUTH DELHI. THEY WERE 6 IN TOTAL INCLUDING THE DRIVER. THE WOMAN AND HER FRIEND WAS ON A WAY TO THEIR HOMES. JUDGING THE SURROUNDING, WHEN THE FRIEND OF THE VICTIM RAISED AN OBLIGATIOB, HE WAS SHOUTED DOWN AND AFTER A FIGHT HE WAS KNOCKED DOWN WITH AN IRON ROD AND THE MEN DRAGGED THE VICTIM TO THE BACK OF THE BUS AND REPEATEDLY GANG-RAPED HER OVER AN HOUR. ONE OF THE ATTACKERS WAS A JUVENILE, WHO INSERTED AN IRON ROD INTO THE PRIVATE PARTS OF THE VICTIM WHILE PULLING AND RIPPING HER INTESTINES APART. WHILE THIS WAS HAPPENING, THE BUS DRIVER DROVE THEE BUS ALL OVER DELHI AND AFTER THE ATTACK, THE VICTIM AND THE FRIEND WERE THROWN AT THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE VICTIM COULD NOT RESIST HER INJURIES AND DIED IN THE HOSPITAL.ALL OF THEM WERE CONVICTED INCLUDING THE MINOR. IN DECEMBER 2012, THE JUVENILE WAS JUST A FEW MONTHS AWAY FROM TURNING EIGHTEEN, THEREFORE HE WAS TRIED SEPARATETLY IN THE JUVENILE COURT. THE BOARD, PRESIDED OVER BY PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE GEETANJALI GOEL SENTENCED THE MINOR TO THREE YEARS IN A PROBATION HOME, THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT THAT CAN BE AWARDED UNDER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT. THE JUVENILE WAS RELEASED IN 2015 AFTER SPENDING THREE YEARS IN A CORRECTIONAL HOME.

IT WAS DUE TO THIS INCIDENT THE EXISTING JUVENILE LAW SUFFERED A NATION WIDE CRITICISM OWING TO ITS HELPLESSNESS AGAINST CRIMES WHERE JUVENILES ESPECIALLY BETWEEN THE AGE GROUP OF 16-18 YEARS, GET INVOLVED IN HEINOUS CRIMES LIKE RAPE, MURDER, DACOITY, ETC.FOLLOWING THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS DUE TO NIRBHAYA CASE, AN URGENT NEED FOR A CHANGE IN THE PRESENT LAW WAS FELT WHERE 16 YEARS OR 17 YEARS OLD WERE INTENTED TO BE TRIED AS ADULTS. IN 2015, RESPONDING TO THE PUBLIC SETIMENT, JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT,2015 WAS PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT OF INDIA AMIDST

INTENSE CONTROVERSY, DEBATE AND PROTEST ON MANY OF ITS PROVISIONS BY CHILD RGHTS FATERNITY. IT REPLACED THE PREVIOUS LAW

I.E. JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT, 2000, AND ALLOWED JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IN THE GROUP OF 16-18 YEARS, INVOLVED IN HEINOUS OFFENCES, TO BE TRIED AS ADULTS.

JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015

THE GOVERNMENT CAME UP WITH NEW ACT I.E. JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015, THEY COULD HAVE MADE THE AMENDEMT BUT CAME UP WITH THIS BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

FIRSTLY, THE INSTITUTON OR THE FUNTIONARIES WHO WERE IMPLEMENTING THIS ACT DID NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, FOR INSTANCE IN SOME STATES IT WAS FOUND THAT CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE WERE PASSING OFF THE ADOPTION ORDERS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, IT CAN ONLY BE DONE BY THE COURT ITSELF AND BY THEM.
1. SECONDLY, IT WAS FOUND IN SOME PLACES, THESE INSITUTIONS KEPT THE CHILD UNDER THE REFORMATIVE PERIOD OF 3 YEARS, EVEN FOR THE TRIVIAL ACTS DONE BY THEM WHICH WAS NOT REQUIRED. FURTHER, FOR THE CHIDREN WHO HAD COMMITTED HEINOUS CRIMES LIKE MURDER, RAPE, ETC, WERE ONLY KEPT FOR THE DURATION OF 3 YEARS WHICH THEY INSTEAD REQUIRED LONGER DURATION OF REFORMATION PERIODS.
1. THIRDLY, THE PROVISIONS IN THE 2000 ACT FOR ADOPTION OF ORPHAN CHILDREN WERE ABANDONED AND SURRERNDERED CHILDREN WERE NOT INCLUDED BUT WERE A PART OF ADOPTION REGULATION OR GUIDELINES WHICH WERE PREPARED BY CARE AND PROTECTION ACT
1. LASTLY, IT WAS FELT THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE MANY ACTS FORMED SUCH AS POSCO, LABOUR ACTS, AND OTHERS BUT THEN ALSO THERE ARE SOME CRIMES WHICH ARE OF HEINOUS NATURE IF

COMMITTED AGAINST THE ADULTS WOULD BE PUNISHED BUT IF THE CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED AGAINST THE CHILD THEN THERE MUST BE STRICT OR HIGHER LEVEL OF PUNISHMENTS. THEREFORE, IT WAS REQUIRED TO ADD SOME MORE ACTS UNDER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT.

BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS, THE GOVERNMENT FELT THAT INSTEAD OF MAKING SO MANY CHANGES INTO IT RATHER PASS NEW AND STRONG ACT. THE ACCOMPANYING ACT OF PARLIAMENT OBTAINED THE CONSENT FROM THE PRESIDENT ON 31^ST DECEMBER 2015 AND IS THUS CIRCULATED FOR GENERAL INFO.

PROVISIONS OF LAWS:

THE NOMENCLATURE HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM JUVENILE CONFLICT WITH LAWS TO THAT OF A CHILD WHO ARE IN CONFLICT WITH LAW. SO THE WORD ‘JUVENILE’ IS NOT BEING USED FOR THE ONE WHO IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW INSTEAD USE ‘CHILD’.
1. CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH IS WHO IS ALLEGED OR ISFOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN OFFENCE AND HAS NOT COMPLETED 18 YEARS OF AGE ON THE DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE.
1. CLEAR DEFINATION OF OFFENCES COMMITTED BY CHILDREN AS PETTY(PUNISHMENT IS UPTO MAXIMUM 3 YEARS), SERIOUS(PUNISHMENT IS BETWEEN 3-7 YEARS) AND HEINOUS(PUNISHMENT IS MINIMUM 7 YEARS WHICH COULD FURTHER GOES ABOVE 7 YEARS).

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:

ONE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD IN EVERY DISTRICT WITH A PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE AND TWO MEMBERS (SOCIAL WORKER).
- PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE SHOULD HAVE 3 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.

MEMBERS TO NOT BE LESS THAN 35 YEARS AND HAVE ALEAST 7 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OR SHOULD BE PRACTICING PROFESSIONAL WITH A DEGREE IN CHILD PSYCHOLOGY, ETC.

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN THIS ACT:

TO MAKE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD WORK EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVITY AND FOR THE WELFARE AND PROTECTION OF THE CHILDREN THE SAYS THE FOLLOWING:

THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND THE PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE ALSO MUST BE PROVIDED MANDATORY TRAINING OF MEMBERS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF APPOINTMENT.
BOARD TO SIT ON ALL WORKING DAYS FOR MINIMUM 6 HOURS PER DAY.
PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE TO DRAW MONTHLY ROSTER MEMBERS.

FUNCTIONS OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:

THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD ARE TO ENSURE INFORMED PARTICIPATION OF CHILD AT EVERY STEP AND TO ENSURE CHILD RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED THROUGH OUT THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY, AFTERCARE AND REHABILITATION. IT ALSO ENSURE AVAILABLITY OF LEGAL AID TO THE PARTICULAR CHILD.

REVIEW OF PENDENCY OF BOARD:

CHIEF JUSTICE MAGISTRATE (CJM) OR CHIEF METRO MAGISTRATE (CMM) REVIEW PENDENCY ONCE IN EVERY QUARTER.
HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE MONITORS CASES EVERY QUARTER.
DISTRICT JUDGE CONDUCTS INSPECTION OF BOARD EVERY QUARTER.

JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) AMENDMENT, ACT, 2021

ACCORDING TO THE NCRB DATA, THE RATE AT WHICH JUVENILES ARE HELD GUILTY IS MUCH HUGHER THAN THE CONVICTION RATE FOR ADULTS. IN 2020, 91.4 PERCENT OF THE JUVENILES ACCUSED WERE HELD GUILTY.

ACCORDING TO THE 2021 ANNUAL CRIME DATA, THERE WAS AN INCREASE OF AT LEAST 7.6 PERCENT IN CRIMES COMMITTED BY MINORS- 2,455 CRIMES IN 2020 AGAINST 2,643 CRIMES IN 2021.

IN 2020, THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE ACT DOES NOT DEAL WITH OFFENCES WHERE THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE IS MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS OF IMPRISOMENT, BUT THERE IS NO MINIMUM SENTENCE, OR MINIMUM SENTENCE IS IF LESS THAN SEVEB YEARS. THE COURT ORDERED THAT THESE OFFENCES SHOULD BE CATEGORISED AS SERIOUS OFFENCES.

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL, 2021, WHICH LOOKS TO ALTER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015, WAS PASSED IN THE LOK SABHA ON MARCH 15^TH, 2021.

THE AMENDMENT BILL WAS PASSED BY RAJYA SABHA ON 28^TH JULY 2021. THE BILL WAS TABLED IN LOK SABHA DURING THE BUDGET SESSION IN MARCH THIS YEAR WHERE IT HAD RECEIVED OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FROM BOTH THE RULING PARTY AS WELL AS THE OPPOSITION.

UNDER THE ACT, TO HAVE A PROOF OF THE ADOPTED CHILD, AN ADOPTION FILES, AN APPLICATION, PRESENTED BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE ADIPTION ORDER. BUT NOW, INSTEAD OF GETTING THE APPROVAL FROM CIVIL COURT WILL BE PERFORMED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (INCLUDING ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE).

AND ALSO, ANY PERSON WHI IS AGGRIEVED BY AN ADOPTION ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAY FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SUCH ORDER. SUCH

APPEALS SHOULD BE DISPOSED WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE IF FILING OF THE APPEAL.

THE BILL ALSO BROUGHT UP THAT THE 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.

UNDER THE ACT, THE BILL AMENDS THE PROVISION OF ENFORCING THE OFFENCES, PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT OF MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS, WILL BE TRIED BY THE CHILDREN’S COURT AND OTHER OFFENCES PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT OF MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS, TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE.

THE ACT PROVIDES THAT AN OFFENCE UNDER THE ACT, WHICH IS PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT BETWEEN THREE TO SEVEN YEARS WILL BE COGNIZABLE AND NNON-BAILABLE.

THE ACT PROVIDES THAT STATES MUST CONSTITUTE ONE OR MORE CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEES(CWCs) FOR EACH DISTRICT FOR DEALING WITH CHILDREN IN NEED OF CARE AND PROTECTION.

CONCLUSION:

AMENDMENT AND INTRODUCTION OF DUCH NEW ACTS MAY HELP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIETY AND THE JUVENILES AND MAYBE UN FUTURE WE CAN SEE THE DRASTIC FALL IN THE INVOLVEMENT OF JUVENILES IN THE SUCH HEINOUS AND SERIOUS OFFENCES. SOME MAY CONSIDER TO MAKE A JUVENILE PAY FOR THEIR WRONG DOINGS AND SOME OF THEM WILL BE THINKING OF SONE OTHER WAYS. BUT ANY WAY IT HAPPENS BUT THE WRONG DOER MUST BE PUNISHED IN A SUITABLE MANNER.

JUVENILE CRIMINALS ABOVE 16 YEAR OF AGE SHOULD BE TREATED AS ADULT.

REASON BEHID FOR ITS FORMATION: