The essence of the Juvenile Justice Act is to reform. Harsh punishment cannot be a deterrent and this in turn could make the juveniles hardcore criminals.
Further, the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 also has separate provisions to deal with children between 16 and 18 years who have committed a ‘heinous offence’ within the purview of the juvenile justice system.
The implementation of the existing Act is very poor. It also needs to be pointed out that the children who are alleged as accused of, or recognized as having infringed criminal law, especially those juveniles who are deprived of their liberty, are at high risk of being subjected to violence within the system itself as was observed in the Matunga home case.
We have come far from the age of Oliver Twist and Charles Dickens and based on understandings of child rights and child psychology, we know that children in conflict with law can be reformed and restored in mainstream society. We — the family, community, school, society, the State — have failed in preventing the child in need of care and protection from turning into a child in conflict with law. There is a hue and cry over the release of a juvenile offender. We followed the rule of law even in Kasab’s case, so why should constitutional norms and international human rights standards be violated in these cases? Certainly, justice has to be done to the victim and rule of law has to be followed but because we have failed, we must take responsibility.
(The writer is a Professor of Law, TISS, and author of 'Child Rights in India’)
