#dnaEdit: The spirit of justice

There is a strong sense of déjà vu in the latest controversy over Maneka Gandhi’s efforts to push through changes in the Juvenile Justice Act that has drawn the ire of child rights activists. Gandhi’s stand reiterates what her ministry, women and child development (WCD), had proposed during the UPA regime in March last year. Even the Supreme Court back then had advocated a nuanced approach, which underscored the importance of determining the maturity and awareness levels in a child before he/she faced the juvenile board. It was the Congress’ lack of resolve that had landed the proposals in cold storage.

Now Gandhi seems determined to complete her predecessor’s unfinished task.

It must be acknowledged that there’s a lot of merit in what the WCD ministry is aiming for, especially against the backdrop of the spurt in serious crimes, including rape and murder, committed by juveniles. The latest National Crime Records Bureau statistics shows the active involvement of children in brutal gender crimes. As per its 2013 data, the 2,074 rapes by juvenile offenders is a huge jump from the 2012’s number of 1,316. Consider the cold fact that out of the 2,074 rape cases, those between the ages of 16 and 18 committed 1,388 of them. Though activists are attributing these numbers to a drastic improvement in the reporting of cases, one cannot deny that children today are a lot different from what they used to be a couple of generations earlier, given the radical changes in society brought about by an ever-increasing socio-economic divide. Recall that in the December 2012 rape of a young physiotherapy student, the juvenile was the cruellest in the gang of five. Three years in a juvenile home was too little punishment for a crime where a young woman’s life was snuffed out.

In the altered reality of a rising crime graph, strong measures need to be initiated, but that alone cannot be the sole antidote. Activists rightly fear that justice based solely in retribution isn’t the right approach to ensure a safe society, if the root causes aren’t addressed. They also feel that the WCD ministry’s measures violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which India is a signatory. True, the JJ Act was reformative in nature, but the entire government machinery dealing with juvenile offenders has been steeped in controversies and rightly accused of criminal indifference towards youngsters. Some of the worst crimes committed on young people have taken place in shelter homes, some of which don’t even have government approval. What is also equally true is that over the years, there has been very little initiative in rehabilitating and integrating misguided youngsters into the mainstream. These children are the victims of the deep fault lines in society; they are uncared for and abused, and forced to live under humiliating circumstances. Gravitating to the world of crime seems to be the most obvious response when a child realises that the world around him has let him down repeatedly, never bothering to come to his aid when he was helpless and vulnerable.

Though one can draw inspiration from the ways the Western world deals with juvenile offenders, it is also imperative to factor in the complex realities of our society and the devastating consequences of sexual and other serious crimes, especially targeted at women and girls. Perhaps, an objective Juvenile Justice Board can play a critical role in allaying the fears of activists. By looking at every case with great care, it can prevent the judicial system from being unduly harsh to young offenders. At this point, however, Gandhi can soften her stance a bit and bring in various stakeholders for a thorough discussion on the reforms to make them more effective.