It is unfortunate that the government seems determined to introduce
legal provisions to ensure that children between the ages of 16 and 18
are tried as adults if they commit heinous offences such as murder and
rape. Ever since a juvenile offender was
given a ‘light’ sentence in the Delhi gang rape case of 2012
under the existing child-friendly laws, there has been a clamour to
treat juveniles involved in heinous crimes as adults. A fresh Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill introduced in the Lok
Sabha last year contained clauses that many child rights activists and
groups disapproved of. A
Standing Committee of Parliament recommended a review
and reconsideration of all clauses that sought to carve out an
exception for children in the 16-18 age group and subject them to the
rigours of regular criminal procedure. However, the
amended Bill now cleared by the Cabinet
retains the clause that provides that when a heinous crime is committed
by one in this age group, the Juvenile Justice Board will assess
whether the crime has been committed as a ‘child’ or as an ‘adult’. The
trial would take place on the basis of this assessment. The present
framework classifies offences as petty, serious and heinous and treats
each category under a different process. The government claims that
since this assessment will be done with the help of psychologists and
social experts, the rights of the juvenile would be protected. It
remains to be seen if enough numbers of such professionals would be
available across the country to make this work.
It should not be forgotten that making children face an adult criminal
court would mar the prospect of their rehabilitation. The Supreme Court
has not seen any special reason to amend the present juvenile law. Nor
did the Justice
J.S. Verma Committee, which made far-reaching recommendations
on the legal framework for treating sexual offences, suggest such
changes. The government should stick by the U.N. Convention on the
Rights of the Child, which treats everyone up to 18 as a child. To the
government's credit, it has held some consultations with stakeholders
before finalising its latest draft. It has heeded the Parliamentary
Committee’s objection to Clause 7, and dropped the arbitrary provision
that a person who had committed an offence when aged between 16 and 18
but was apprehended only after crossing the age of 21 would be treated
and tried as an adult. However, this is not enough. The government would
do well to drop its attempt to have a differential system for those involved in ‘heinous offences’.
Instead, it should pursue the other forward-looking aspects of the
bill, which has welcome features for the care and protection of children
that can help them significantly through provisions such as those for
foster homes and a better-regulated adoption mechanism.
