Introduction

Much has been written about victim children and children in need of care and protection, but very little about juvenile offenders, who are the truly neglected children. The state machinery hides them in institutions where no outsider is allowed to tread and leaves them to their own devices with scant attention being paid to their well-being and rehabilitation. On completion of their sentence they are flushed out, ill-equipped to handle life outside of the institution.

This treatment meted out to juvenile offenders is most deplorable, especially when juvenile legislation recognises that juveniles in conflict with the law also require care and protection. It should be borne in mind that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [emphasis added], as did the Juvenile Justice Act 1986 and the Children Acts before it, deals with both children in need of care and protection and juveniles in conflict with law, and as the title of the 2000 legislation suggests, it is both categories of children that require “care and protection”.

A separate adjudicating and treatment mechanism has been established for persons below 18 years of age who have committed an offence. They are not to be treated in the same manner as are treated adult offenders. The reason for this being that a young man is believed to be less blameworthy than an adult, as he is prone to act in haste due to lack of judgement, easily influenced by others.

“…from their inception, youth justice systems have proceeded from the assumption that children and young people, by dint of their relative immaturity, are less able to control their impulses, less able to understand the seriousness of their offences and less able to foresee the consequences of their actions. Linked to this is the belief that the culpability of many young offenders may be further mitigated by the poverty, cruelty or neglect they have suffered [1].

Furthermore, the punishment meted out to adults is perceived to be too harsh to be borne by a young person. The focus of juvenile legislation is on the juvenile’s reformation and rehabilitation so that he also may have a chance at opportunities enjoyed by other children.

But there is a contrasting view that loudly states that the juvenile offenders are committing violent crimes from which society should be protected and that the juvenile justice system is mollycoddling them. It is apprehended that this latter strain of thinking will gather momentum, and pressure will be created to treat juvenile offenders on par with adult offenders or tougher juvenile legislation, especially in respect of serious offences.

Role Of Society In Juvenile Behaviour

A child is a part of the society in which he lives. Due to his immaturity, he is easily motivated by what he sees around him. It is his environment and social context that provokes his actions.

Juvenile legislation attempts to cure his illness by treating the juvenile without doing anything to treat the causes of illness. It is naïve to believe that poverty, unemployment, inequalities and changing values will not impact children existing in its midst and that they will grow unaffected.

The juvenile justice system as it is currently envisaged, at its best, can only help the child to cope and tolerate the maladjusted and dysfunctional society. If the state genuinely has the interest of children at heart, it should not only look after its children but also take measures to improve the situation faced by their family and other support structures.

Challenges Faced By Juveniles In Conflict With Law

Working with juveniles in conflict with law is not an easy task. The majority of juveniles within the juvenile justice system are without families and homes; they have migrated to a different region where they are earning a livelihood.

They perceive the juvenile justice system as a hindrance. They abhor this “protection” as they have been on their own for many years, with nobody to depend on or advise them. They have been making their independent decisions and are “little adults”.

The juvenile justice system aims at converting these “little adults” into children. Is it possible to do so?

Observations by Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhry

Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhry, who in the course of his legal practice has seen juveniles in the Mumbai Central Prison and in the Observation Home, Dongri, Mumbai, has this to say:

“Juveniles whilst in jail behave like adults imitating the older prisoners, but once shifted to the observation home, within a few days the child in them comes to the fore, shouting and playing and fighting with their peers, doing all the things that a child is expected to do. They suddenly turn impish. They even look younger.”

Dr Chaudhry’s observation fortifies one’s belief that juvenile legislation, if not in all cases, in some, allows the child to think and act at this age.

Scope And Objectives Of The Book

This book attempts to look at juveniles in conflict with law and the manner in which they are treated within the juvenile justice system.

Not only does it examine the law on juvenile justice and its journey since the early 20th century but also the different challenges faced by a juvenile who, to satisfy his needs or because of his infantile behaviour, gets into trouble with the law.

A section briefly narrates judgements passed by the courts in respect of different issues relating to juveniles.

Legal Guidance And Hypothetical Cases

The author has also set out a few hypothetical cases and a step-by-step guide to legally assist juveniles in a similar situation.

• Analysis of juvenile justice laws
• Discussion on rehabilitation and reformative justice
• Judicial decisions related to juveniles
• Practical legal guidance for juveniles in conflict with law
• Hypothetical case studies for better understanding

Usage Of Masculine Pronoun In The Book

Throughout this book, the masculine pronoun has been used to refer to a juvenile in conflict with law, not only because of Section 18 of IPC, which states that “the pronoun ‘he’ and its derivatives are used for any person, whether male or female”, but also consciously as boy juveniles in conflict with law within the juvenile justice system.

“The ratio of girls to the boys arrested for committing IPC crimes during 2001 was nearly 1:20.” [2]

Juvenile Justice Rules 2007

The model rules referred to in this book are the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2007, issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development vide notification dated 26th October 2007.

Key Focus Areas Of Juvenile Justice System

Focus Area	Description
Care And Protection	Ensuring the safety and welfare of children in conflict with the law.
Rehabilitation	Helping juveniles reintegrate into society.
Reformation	Correcting behavioural patterns through guidance and support.
Separate Justice Mechanism	Providing distinct legal treatment for adult offenders.
Child-Centric Approach	Recognising juveniles as children requiring support and protection.

History Of Juvenile Legislation In India

From the early 20th century, the different Indian states had enacted their own Children Acts. The Madras Children Act 1920 was the first Children Act to be enacted, closely followed by Bengal and Bombay in 1922 and 1924, respectively. Though the Bombay Children Act was enacted 4 years after the Madras Children Act, it was the first Children Act to become functional.

In February 1924, a voluntary state-aided agency, viz., the Children’s Aid Society, was formed to implement the provisions of the Bombay Children Act within the municipal corporation limits of Bombay. CAS established institutions for the care and protection of children and, even today, manages these institutions.

Early State Children Acts

The State’s Children Acts brought within its ambit two categories of children, viz.:

• Youthful offenders
• Destitute and neglected children

Both these categories of children were to be handled by the juvenile courts.

During this period throughout the world, children were dealt with under the “welfarism” mode. The well-being of the child was at centre stage for both these categories of children, and adjudication of guilt was not stressed; hence, probation officers played an important role, and legal representation was unheard of.

The Children Act, 1960

The Government of India passed the Children Act, 1960, to “provide for the care, protection, maintenance, welfare, training, education and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent children and for the trial of delinquent children in the Union Territories”.

Under this Act, a child is:

Category	Age Definition
Boy	Below 16 years of age
Girl	Below 18 years of age

The Child Welfare Board handled neglected children, and the Children’s Court handled delinquent children. This statute was a precursor to the JJA 1986.

Lack Of Uniformity In State Laws

State governments had not only enacted their separate legislation for children; the provisions contained in each state’s Children Act were also varied. Even the definition of the term “child” differed from state to state.

This prompted the Supreme Court in 1986 to observe:

“We would suggest that instead of each state having its own Children’s Act different in procedure and content from the Children’s Act in other states, it would be desirable if the Central Government initiated parliamentary legislation on the subject so that there is complete uniformity in regard to the various provisions relating to children in the entire territory of the country.

The Children’s Act, which may be enacted by Parliament, should contain not only provisions for investigation and trial of offences against children below the age of years but should also contain mandatory provisions for ensuring social, economic and psychological rehabilitation of the children who are either accused of offences or are abandoned or destitute or lost.

Moreover, it is not enough merely to have legislation on the subject, but it is equally, if not more, important to ensure that such legislation is implemented in all earnestness and mere lip service is not paid to such legislation and justification for non-implementation is not pleaded on the ground of lack of finances on the part of the state.

The greatest recompense which the state can get for expenditure on children is the building up of a powerful human resource ready to take its place in the forward march of the nation.”

United Nations And The Beijing Rules

The General Assembly on 29th November 1985 adopted the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, and for the first time the word “juvenile” was used in international law, and the term “juvenile justice” was coined.

This change in terminology was then reflected in domestic law with the passing of the JJA 1986.

Reasons For Change In Terminology

M.S. Sabnis has given the reasons for the change of terminology on the international platform as being twofold:

1. To denote that juvenile offenders need to be treated differently from adult offenders due to “the special problems he [or she] is constrained to face in the traditional adult-orientated criminal justice system”.
2. At the same time, caution against pure welfarism that denies a child due process and the basic legal safeguards.

Shift From Welfarism To Justice Model

With the advent of the Beijing Rules, the “welfarism” era gave way to the “justice” paradigm.

“Juvenile justice shall be conceived as an integral part of the national development process of each country, within a comprehensive framework of social justice, contributing to the protection of the young and the maintenance of a peaceful order in society.”

The concentration was to be divided between the well-being of the child and justice. Justice not only for the child, but also for those aggrieved by his deed.

Criticism Of Welfarism

This was necessitated by the growing cynicism towards “welfarism” amongst politicians and the public, as well as civil libertarians.

• The former was of the opinion that children beyond a particular age should be made responsible for their actions: if they act as adults do, why should they not be treated as adults?
• The latter believed that “welfarism” led to irrational, indiscriminate treatment being dispensed amongst juveniles placed in a like situation.

Thus, they should be accorded the constitutional and procedural precautions guaranteed to adults, especially as juveniles too are deprived of their personal liberty.

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986

Nations introduced separate legislation for juvenile offenders and children requiring care and protection.

With the enactment of JJA 1986, though there continued to be a single law, two distinct machineries were set up to deal with the following:

• Neglected juveniles
• Delinquent juveniles

Pending their enquiries before their respective competent authorities, both these categories of children were kept in the observation home.

Juvenile Justice Act, 2000

JJA 2000 for the first time provided for the following:

• Juveniles in conflict with law
• Children in need of care and protection

These two categories were to be kept separately pending their enquiries.

Changing Perception Of Juvenile Crime

This change in perception is because juvenile crime is today more noticeable, mostly occurring on the streets where the young attempt to survive without family or societal support.

The media too has played a major role in portraying juveniles in conflict with law as the perpetrators of barbaric acts who get away lightly due to their age.

Balancing Welfare And Justice

Juvenile legislation in India has attempted to balance “welfarism” and “justice” with the concept of a “welfare court” that provides a child his constitutional and procedural safeguards at the inquiry stage and thereafter decides his treatment mode, keeping in mind the child’s interest and his comprehensive rehabilitation.

The concept that a person below 18 years of age who has committed an offence also requires protection continues to be reflected in our law, and it will always continue to do so.

The same act, JJA 2000, still governs both juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection.

Key Highlights Of Juvenile Legislation

Year	Legislation / Development	Significance
1920	Madras Children Act	First Children Act enacted in India
1924	Bombay Children Act	The first functional Children Act
1960	Children Act, 1960	Focused on care, protection and rehabilitation
1985	UN Beijing Rules	Introduced concept of juvenile justice.
1986	Juvenile Justice Act, 1986	Created separate machinery for juveniles
2000	Juvenile Justice Act, 2000	Separated juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care

Who Is A Juvenile?

A juvenile or child means a person who has not completed the eighteenth year of age. A boy or a girl under 18 years of age is a juvenile or child under section 2(k) of JJA 2000.

The age of juvenility of a boy child under JJA 1986 was below 16 years of age, and that of a girl child was below 18 years of age [9]. Those working in the field of children had campaigned to increase the age of boy juveniles to bring it on par with girl juveniles.

The age of a juvenile boy has been increased to 18 years of age by JJA 2000 mainly to bring juvenile legislation into conformity with the CRC, which the Government of India had ratified on 11th December 1992 [10].

Objectives Of JJA 2000

The statement of objects and reasons of JJA 2000 has indicated this non-conformity as being a ground for amending JJA 1986:

“2. In this context, the following further proposals have been made –

• (iii) to bring the juvenile law in conformity with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child;
• (iv) to prescribe a uniform age of eighteen years for both boys and girls;

Article 1 of the CRC states that:

“For the purposes of the present convention, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.”

Protection Under Juvenile Legislation

So currently both boys and girls below 18 years of age enjoy the protection of juvenile legislation. Whatever the reason for increasing the age of the juvenile boy, it was vital to do so and is welcomed.

It is argued by some, mainly the superintendents and staff of observation homes and special homes, that due to the increase in the age of boy juveniles under the 2000 Act, a much larger number of juveniles in conflict with the law are entering the juvenile justice system; therefore, the existing infrastructure is insufficient to cope with this added burden.

Some officials have publicly demanded that the age of the juvenile boy be reduced to 16 years. This demand is irrational and defeated and can never be entertained.

Why Reducing Age Is Not An Option

It is essential to understand that reducing the age to 16 years is not an option. Furthermore, statistics belie this contention.

Statistics denote an initial growth in the juvenile crime rate in 2001 [11], but the same soon thereafter stabilised. The following figures have been reproduced [12] from Crime in India, published annually by the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

“A decrease of 9.0% in the number of juveniles apprehended in the age group {16-18 years} was noticed in 2004 as compared to 2003. At the national level, the overall decrease in juveniles apprehended was 7.1% in 2004 as compared to 2003 [13].

Juvenile Crime Statistics

Year	Observation
2001	Initial rise in juvenile crime rate observed
2004	9.0% decrease in juveniles apprehended in 16-18 age group compared to 2003
2004	Overall decrease of 7.1% in juveniles apprehended nationally

This belies the argument that the number of children involved in criminal activities is steadily on the rise.

The infrastructure was adequate and required upgrading even under JJA 1986, when the age of a boy juvenile was 16 years.

Need For Infrastructure Development

It is imperative that the state governments upgrade and streamline the prevailing infrastructure. It is not a difficult or impossible task. It merely requires some application of mind and the political will to set an improved system in place.

It is necessary to ensure the following:

• That vacancies in institutions are filled
• The strength of the institutional staff and PO’s increased
• Appropriate posts created
• Educational and vocational training provided
• The spirit of juvenile legislation adhered to

Granting of bail and increasing the sittings of or constituting additional JJBs are available solutions to check the backlog of pending cases.

Speedy Disposal Of Cases

Recognising the importance of speedy disposal of juvenile cases, the legislature inserted section 14(2) in 2006:

“The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall review the pendency of cases of the board at every six months and shall direct the board to increase the frequency of its sittings or may cause the constitution of additional boards.”

Serious Offences And Juvenile Law

With the increase in age of boy juveniles, it was also envisaged that there would be a significant rise in the number of juveniles committing offences of a more serious nature, such as murder and rape.

Statistics also put to rest this prediction. The data published by the National Crime Records Bureau show the following:

Year	Murder Cases (%)	Rape Cases (%)
1999	2.7% of total IPC crimes	2.1% of total IPC crimes
2000	2.6% of total IPC crimes	1.8% of total IPC crimes
2001	2.2% of total IPC crimes	2.1% of total IPC crimes

Who Is A Juvenile In Conflict With Law?

Section 2(1) of 2000 has defined “juvenile” as one who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteen years of age as of the date of commissioning of such offence. This amended definition put to rest the debate as to the relevant date at which juvenility is to be determined.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, had continuously held that the date of offence was the relevant date [14].

Supreme Court View In Umesh Chandra’s Case

In Umesh Chandra’s case, the Supreme Court had held:

“As regard the general applicability of the Act, we are clearly of the view that the relevant date for the applicability of the Act is the date on which the offence takes place. The Children Act was enacted to protect young children from the consequences of their criminal acts on the footing that their minds at that age could not be said to be mature for imputing mens rea as in the case of an adult [15]. This being the intendment of the Act, a clear finding has to be recorded that the relevant date for applicability of the Act is the date on which the offence takes place… We are clearly of the view that the relevant date for applicability of the Act so far as age of the accused, who claims to be a child, is concerned, is the date of the occurrence and not the date of the trial.”

Debate After Arnit Das’ Case

Lawyers and academicians decried the non-consideration of Umesh Chandra’s three-judge bench judgement whilst deciding Arnit Das’ case. A review petition was filed and referred to a larger bench “to resolve the conflict between the two opinions”.

However, the Supreme Court demurred from resolving the issue then because, on facts, Arnit Das was not a juvenile on the date of the offence, and the court was not inclined to answer academic questions only.

Pratap Singh v State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Ultimately, a five-judge bench settled this issue in Pratap Singh v State Of Jharkhand & Ors., reverting back to the seasoned findings that had been incorrectly overturned in Arnit Das’ judgement.

The Apex Court in Pratap Singh’s case was faced with a query as to the following:

“Whether the date of occurrence will be the reckoning date for determining the age of the alleged offender as a juvenile offender or the date when he is produced in the court/competent authority.”

All five judges unanimously opined:

“The reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of the offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the court.”

Validity Of Umesh Chandra Judgement

The decision in Umesh Chandra’s case [16] was held to be correct law, and it was established that “the decision rendered by a two-judge bench of this court in Arnit Das cannot be said to have laid down a good law”.

In the Arnit Das judgement of 2000, the Supreme Court had observed that the legislature had been vague whilst defining the term “delinquent juvenile” in the 1986 Act.

“All this exercise would have been avoided if only the legislature would have taken care not to leave an ambiguity in the definition of ‘juvenile’ and would have clearly specified the point of time by reference to which the age was to be determined to find a person to be a juvenile.”

Amendment In Definition Of Juvenile

Fortunately, the legislature heeded this comment of the apex court, and to remove any misunderstanding, the definition of ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ was amended in 2006.

At this stage, it is essential to examine the evolution of the term “delinquent juvenile” or “juvenile in conflict with law” under juvenile legislation in relation to the point in time at which juvenility is to be determined.

Difference Between 1986 Act and the 2000 Act

Aspect	1986 Act	2000 Act
Definition Used	“Delinquent Juvenile”	“Juvenile In Conflict With Law”
Meaning	A juvenile who has been found to have committed an offence	A juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence
Issue	Found ambiguous in Arnit Das’ case [17]	Clarified the point of determination
Relevant Date	Unclear	Date of occurrence of offence

Clarification Under The 2000 Act

In order to remove the uncertainty, the 2000 Act was redefined. “Juvenile in conflict with law” came to mean a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence.

This alteration clarified that ‘juvenile’ was to be ascertained with reference to that point in time when it was assured that an offence had been committed. It is only on the date of occurrence that an offence is assumed to have been committed [18].

Key Takeaways On Juvenile In Conflict With Law

• The age of juvenility is determined on the date of occurrence of the offence.
• The Supreme Court consistently supported this interpretation in major cases.
• Pratap Singh v State Of Jharkhand finally settled the legal position.
• The 2006 amendment removed ambiguity in the definition of “juvenile in conflict with law”.
• The 2000 Act shifted focus from conviction to allegation of an offence.

Age Of Criminal Responsibility

The domestic laws of all countries have laid down a minimum age below which a person is exempt from prosecution and punishment. The rationale for such exemption is the absence of mens rea, i.e., not to criminalise the acts of those who at the time of commission of the crime did not know the right from the wrong. Persons below that age do not realise nor intend the consequences of their acts.

Article 40(3)(a) of CRC requires state parties to promote the establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the old law.

The age of criminal responsibility in India is fixed at 7 years by IPC section 8 of the IPC.

“Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.”

Hence, under Indian law, a child below 7 years of age cannot be prosecuted and will not enter the juvenile justice system as a juvenile in conflict with the law. If such a child falls within the definition of a child in need of care and protection, he could be produced before the child welfare committee for his care, protection and rehabilitation.

Age Of Criminal Responsibility In Europe And India

Most European countries have fixed the age of criminal responsibility between 13 and 15 years. France, Poland, Germany, Italy and Finland have fixed it at 13, 14 and 15 years, respectively. Seven years is a very low age of criminal responsibility and requires raising.

The law has recognised that a person between the ages of 7 and 18 years is less culpable than an adult and has set out different levels of criminal responsibility depending upon the child’s maturity and age.

Section 83 Of IPC

“Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.”

The accused child to avail of this defence will have to prove that he is below 12 years of age and that he has not attained adequate maturity of understanding; therefore, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.

Under Indian law, children between 7 and 12 years of age having sufficient maturity and between 12 and 18 years who have committed an offence are responsible for their criminal acts but are not to be treated or sentenced in the same manner as an adult. Such children will be dealt with under juvenile legislation, and the focus will be on reforming and rehabilitating them.

Articles Relating To Juvenility

The Supreme Court has decided to examine the constitutional validity of the definition of ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice Act since it provides blanket cover to juveniles less than 18 years of age even in the case of heinous crimes.

The court expressed the opinion that the fixation of age should have some nexus with the gravity of the crime or offence for deciding whether the offenders can be tried as adults in heinous offences.

The court has taken this step in response to a petition challenging certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The petition argues that some provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, are in violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution, apart from being in non-observance of Article 39A, which is one of the directive principles of state policy.

History Of Juvenile Justice Act In India

• The Government of India enacted the Juvenile Justice Act in 1986.
• In 1989, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of a Child.
• India ratified the UNCRC in 1992.
• The convention outlines the right of the child to reintegration into society without judicial proceedings where avoidable.
• To fulfil the standards of the convention, the government felt a need to rewrite the law.
• Hence, in 2000, the old law was replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Constitutional Concerns Under Articles 14, 21 And 39A

The petition argues that some provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, are in violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution, apart from being in non-observance of Article 39A, which is one of the directive principles of state policy.

Ram Singh V State On 13 May, 1958

Appellant Ram Singh has been convicted under section 302 of the I.P. code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, and sentenced to death.

Five other accused persons, namely Kirpa Shankar alias Lala Misra, Krishna Kumar alias Chhuthan, Mahesh Prasad, Lallu and Brahma Kishore alias Phunnar, were also prosecuted in this case, but they were acquitted.

The charge against the appellant and the other accused persons was that they committed a riot with deadly weapons, such as pistols and guns, on the night between the 14th and 15th of July, 1956, near the culvert of village Bighapur, and in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, they committed the murder of Shankari Brahmin by shooting him dead.

The learned judge has made the usual reference for the confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant.

Key Highlights On Age Of Criminal Responsibility

Topic	Details
Minimum Age In India	7 Years
Relevant IPC Sections	Section 82 and Section 83 IPC
Juvenile Age Limit	Below 18 Years
Focus Of Juvenile Law	Reformation And Rehabilitation
International Convention	UN Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC)

Conclusion On Juvenile Justice And Criminal Responsibility

The concept of age of criminal responsibility is based on the principle that children below a certain age lack the maturity to understand the consequences of their actions. Indian law provides protection to children below seven years and special treatment to juveniles under eighteen years through reformative justice mechanisms.

The debate regarding juvenility in heinous offences continues to remain an important constitutional and social issue in India. Courts and lawmakers are constantly balancing child rights, public safety and the principles of justice while interpreting the juvenile justice laws.

Justice J.S. Verma Committee And Juvenile Justice Act

The Justice JS Verma committee, set up to suggest ways to make rape laws stronger in the country, has submitted its report [20]. The Justice Verma committees recommended enhancing punishment of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for rape and murder and life for gang rape but refrained from suggesting the death penalty. The three-member committee headed by former chief justice J.S. Verma submitted its 630-page report to the government, suggesting amendment of criminal laws to provide for higher punishment to rapists, including those belonging to police and public servants.

New offences have been created, and stiffer punishment has been suggested for those committing them, like leaving the victim in a vegetative state. The new offences include disrobing a woman, voyeurism, stalking and trafficking. The present law provides for punishment for rapists of imprisonment ranging from seven years to life imprisonment. The panel, which was constituted in the wake of national outrage over the December 16 gang rape of a 23-year-old girl in Delhi, in which one of the accused six is said to be a juvenile, is of the opinion that the age of the juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act need not be lowered from the present 18.

Recommendations Of The Justice Verma Committee

The Justice Verma committee today recommended enhancing punishment of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for rape and murder and life for gang rape but refrained from suggesting the death penalty.

The three-member committee headed by former chief justice J.S. Verma submitted its 630-page report to the government suggesting amendment of criminal laws to provide for higher punishment to rapists, including those belonging to police and public servants.

New offences have been created, and stiffer punishment has been suggested for those committing them, like leaving the victim in a vegetative state. The new offences include disrobing a woman, voyeurism, stalking and trafficking. The present law provides for punishment for rapists of imprisonment ranging from seven years to life imprisonment.

Major Offences Added By The Committee

• Disrobing of women
• Voyeurism
• Stalking
• Trafficking
• Leaving victims in a vegetative state

Committee View On Juvenile Age

The panel, which was constituted in the wake of national outrage over the December 16 gang rape of a 23-year-old girl in Delhi, in which one of the accused six is said to be a juvenile, however, is of the opinion that the age of the juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act need not be lowered from the present 18.

There has been strong demand that the age of a juvenile should be brought down to 16 in view of the fact that the minor accused in the Delhi gang rape allegedly behaved in the most brutal way.

There has been strong demand that the age of a juvenile should be brought down to 16 in view of the fact that the minor accused in the Delhi gang rape allegedly behaved in the most brutal way. Releasing the report, Justice Verma told a news conference that the committee has not suggested the death penalty for rapists because there were overwhelming suggestions from the women’s organisations against it, a point that was received with thunderous applause from activists at the media interaction.

Key Highlights Of The Justice Verma Report

Issue	Recommendation
Punishment For Rape	Up to 20 years imprisonment
Gang Rape	Life imprisonment
Death Penalty	Not recommended
New Offences	Voyeurism, stalking, trafficking, disrobing
Juvenile Age	No reduction below 18 years

Re-Examining The Constitutional Validity Of The Legal Definition Of ‘Juvenile’

The Supreme Court has decided to examine the constitutional validity of the definition of ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice Act since it provides blanket cover to juveniles younger than 18 years of age even in the case of heinous crimes. The court expressed the opinion that the fixation of age should have some nexus with the gravity of the crime or offence for deciding whether the offenders can be tried as adults in heinous crimes [21].

The court expressed the opinion that the fixation of age should have some nexus with the gravity of the crime or offence for deciding whether the offenders can be tried as adults in heinous offences. The court has taken this step in response to a petition challenging certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

The petition argues that some provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, are in violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, apart from being in non-observance of Article 39A, which is one of the directive principles of state policy.

Constitutional Issues Raised

• Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
• Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution
• Non-observance of Article 39A
• Blanket protection to juveniles in heinous crimes

Juvenile Justice Act, 2000

The Government of India enacted the Juvenile Justice Act in 1986. In 1989 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of a Child. India ratified the UNCRC in 1992.

The conventions outline the right of the child to reintegration into society without judicial proceedings where avoidable. Hence, the government, to fulfil the standards of the convention, felt a need to rewrite the law.

Hence, in 2000 the old law was replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. In this Act a child or juvenile is defined as a person who has not completed his/her 18th year of age.

It outlines two targeted groups:

• Children in need of care and protection
• Juveniles in conflict with law

This act protects not only the rights of children but also a person’s rights when he/she was a child (meaning that if a crime or an incident took place while the person was a child and then during the proceedings the juvenile ceased to be of age, the case would continue as if the juvenile had not turned eighteen yet).

Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs)

The second chapter of the act addresses juveniles in conflict with the law (JCLs). This section calls for the establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) where the state government sees fit.

JJBs must contain a metropolitan or judicial magistrate and two social workers, where one of the workers must be a woman. The magistrate is required to have a background in child psychology or child welfare. JCL cases can only be heard in the JJB and not by another court.

Observation Homes And Special Homes

For the reception and rehabilitation of JCLs, the state must set up observation. Homes and special homes in every district or group of districts. The state may directly set up these homes or contract a voluntary organisation to do so.

Observation homes for institutions for juveniles while their proceedings are underway. After the proceedings of a particular case are complete, the JJB may decide that the rehabilitation of the child is not complete and hence place them in a special home for no longer than three years.

Rights Of Juveniles Under The Act

• No juvenile for any reason can be lodged in a police lock-up or in Jail
• Cases can only be heard before juvenile justice boards.
• Bail is available in most cases
• Special Juvenile Police Units must handle juveniles
• Rehabilitation and reintegration remain primary objectives

When a police officer comes in contact with a juvenile, he must place the child with the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU), who must report the child to the board without delay.

Bail is available to juveniles in all cases as long as the board finds the release of this child will not place him in any danger or in the influence of criminals.

The Justice J.S. Verma Committee played a landmark role in recommending stricter rape laws and reforms in India’s criminal justice system following the Delhi gang rape case. While the committee strongly supported enhanced punishment and introduction of new offences such as stalking and voyeurism, it opposed lowering the age of juvenility from 18 years. The debate surrounding juvenile justice, constitutional validity, and treatment of juveniles in heinous crimes continues to remain one of the most significant legal and social discussions in India.

Why Is There A Need To Examine The Constitutional Validity Of The Definition Of ‘Juvenile’ Under The Juvenile Justice Act?

The matter has come into debate after it was found that one of the accused in the recent horrific incidence of gang rape and murder of a young man in Delhi was juvenile, which will allow him to escape the harsh punishment that would be meted out to his other accomplice.

Context Of The Present Petition Before The Supreme Court Of India

In the context of this anomaly, the present petition before the SC of India argues the following.

• The JJ Act is a special socially beneficial piece of legislation and is well-intended and impregnated with very high and pious objectives.
• However, the classification/definition for all juvenile offenders up to the age of 18 years provides blanket cover/protection against all and every offence committed, unmindful of the:
  • Nature and gravity of the offence
  • Actual age and mental maturity level of juvenile offender
  • Socio-economic background of the juvenile
  • Nature and character of the juvenile
  • Rights of the victim of offence committed by the juvenile
• Thus, taking away the judicial discretion in totality and absolutely in case of an offence committed by the juvenile is highly irrational.
• Further, it has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved and is contrary to and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is unconstitutional.

Maturity And Age Classification Under Indian Law

It is generally agreed among the legal experts that the maturity of mind and reason in a child is not uniform in all children up to the age of 18 years.

The Indian Penal Code (which was enacted and codified approximately 150 years before) under Sections 82 and 83 represents a much better classification of children in accordance with their age in respect of the offence committed by them, wherein:

Age Group	Legal Position Under IPC
Up To 7 Years	Totally exempted from any criminal liability
7 To 12 Years	Judicial discretion exists to judge the maturity level of the child in respect of the offence committed

NCRB Data On Juvenile Crime

Recent data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) shows that the number of juveniles apprehended on charges of committing rape exceeded those held for murder.

The number of juveniles held in 2011 on charges of murder was 1,168 as against 1,231 held on charges of rape, according to the 2011 NCRB report.

The report further reveals that an overwhelming majority of the juveniles apprehended were in the 16–18 age group.

Impact Of The Reformative Approach Under Juvenile Law

The reformative approach, which was reinforced with the introduction of several changes in the juvenile law in 2000, seems to have worked for the 7 to 12 and 12 to 16 age groups but not for the 16 to 18 age group, which was added with age for juveniles being raised from 16 to 18 through the amendment that year.

It is true that the objective behind attempting to reform, rather than punish, a juvenile is too sacrosanct to be sacrificed on account of the deviant behaviour of a few.

But ignoring the fact that the law, as it stands today, might not be working in the case of youth belonging to a particular age group could prove to be counterproductive.

Conclusion

The Justice Verma Committee, which was constituted to look into laws relating to sex offences in the aftermath of the Delhi gang rape, also considered the subject of a general lowering of the juvenile age.

However, based on the research and the statistics in this area, the committee came to the conclusion that it was not viable.

Even the women’s organisations submitting before the committee were mostly of the view that it was not desirable to exactly predict the age of the juvenile.

As time generally moves on, the crime rate done by the juvenile also moves further, and so one cannot easily predict the age of the juvenile.

Even though in various cases a difference of opinion is given, as far as Indian law is concerned, the time changes on, and so one has to check through the various changes that happen, and so these are the various issues regarding the term ‘juvenile’.

As far as my opinion is concerned, it is not easy to determine the term ‘juvenile’ because as time moves on, it keeps changing, and so, according to different cases and judgements, the opinion differs.

Bibliography

1. Delhi Gang Rape: Chronology of Events, The Hindu (New Delhi), 31 August 2013.
2. Barry Ellen (13 September 2013), Sentenced to Death in Rape Case That Riveted India, The New York Times.
3. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
4. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

Websites Referred

• www.indiakanoon.org
• www.legalservicesindia.com
• www.manupatra.com
• www.thehindu.com

Reference No.	End Note Details
[1]	Crime in India 2001, National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
[2]	Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 632: [1986] SCC (Crl) 352, 1986 CriLJ 1736 (SC).
[3]	Also known as Beijing Rules.
[4]	Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Correction: Pride and Prudence, M.S. Sabhis, Somalya Publications Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay and New Delhi, 1996), Pg. 31.
[5]	Article 40 of CRC.
[6]	Article 3.1 of CRC.
[7]	Section 2(h) of JJA 1986.
[8]	Ratification is the act by which a country shows its willingness to be bound by an international instrument.
[9]	Brought into effect from 22.08.2006 by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 (33 of 2006).
[10]	Armit Das v. State of Bihar: (2000) 5 SC 488.
[11]	Umesh Chandra v. State of Bihar: (2000) 5 SC 488.
[12]	Relevant Date for Applying the Juvenile Justice Act, Dr Ved Kumar (2000) 6 SC Journal 09.
[13]	Arnit Das v. State of Bihar: (2001) 7 SCC 657: 2001 SCC (Crl) 1393.
[14]	Section 2(e) of JJA 1986.
[15]	In the 2000 Act, the term “Juvenile in Conflict with Law” replaced the term “Delinquent Juvenile”.
[16]	Section 2(l) of JJA, 1986.
[17]	Explanation to Section 20 of JJA, 2000.
[18]	Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co., 6th Edition, Pg. 1317.
[19]	Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Correction: Pride and Prudence, M.S. Sabris, Somanya Publications Pvt. Ltd., Bombay & New Delhi, 1996, Pg. 81.
[20]	Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court, Barry C. Fold, Oxford University Press (1999).
[21]	The Constitution of India by B.M. Bakshi.
[22]	Articles from The Hindu newspaper.