#dnaEdit: Gross injustice

Since the ministry of women and child development introduced the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill 2014 in the Lok Sabha in August 2014, it has been a hot potato of sorts. Battlelines were drawn as activists vehemently opposed the government’s move, accusing the latter of abdicating its responsibility to children. In the wake of the December 16, 2012, gang rape where a juvenile’s brutality among the six perpetrators was at the centre of public discourse, paving the way for this legislation, the Supreme Court refused to accede to the dominant sentiment. It turned down two petitions that challenged the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. The apex court had then pointed out that it was the legislature’s prerogative to lower the age of juveniles, and not the business of the judiciary. By giving his assent to the Cabinet proposal to reduce the cut-off age for juvenile offenders involved in heinous crimes, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose to exclude the differing views of those of the parliamentary standing committee, the National Human Rights Commission, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and several other groups on an extremely sensitive and critical issue that has a direct bearing on the future of India’s 37 crore children. 

The proposed law empowers the Juvenile Justice Board, comprising psychologists and social experts, to assess if the crime was committed by a ‘child’ or an adult. In other words, the two-stage assessment will determine whether an offender in the 16-18 age group is a serious threat to society and whether he/she should be tried under the Indian Penal Code that doesn’t display leniency in its treatment of adult criminals. 

The Union Cabinet claims to have taken this controversial decision in view of the “increasing number of serious offences being committed by persons in the age group of 16-18 years and recognising the rights of the victims as being equally important as the rights of juveniles”. But to date there has been no exhaustive study to prove that the deterrence of stricter laws for serious crimes committed by juveniles has brought down the crime rate. There is no definitive proof either that the proposed legislation will bring down gender crimes in the country and make India a safer place for women. 

It must be borne in mind that in most cases juveniles held for both petty and serious offences come from poor financial backgrounds. By denying some of these children a chance to reform, the government is endorsing the views of an apathetic society that had virtually pushed them into the murky world of crime. A child isn’t born with criminal intent; he/she is only a victim of circumstances in a world governed and dominated by adults. And, more often than not, the world finds it easy to exploit a child’s innocence and vulnerability. On the other hand when the government had the opportunity to introduce a progressive legislation, it failed to rise to the occasion. 

The only silver lining lies in the legislation’s emphasis to streamline adoption procedures and its intent to curb various forms of child abuse such as illegal adoption, corporal punishments in child-care institutions, offences against disabled children and use of children by militant groups. But the law is still a piecemeal approach that conveniently bypasses the more urgent and pressing matter of dealing with the causes that turn a child into a law-breaker.