The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, was brought in with the purpose of conducting criminal trials of minors or children in conflict with law (CCLs) who are accused of petty or serious offences before the Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs).
However, according to data recently provided by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) before the High Court, as many as 1,903 cases of petty offences — those between six months and one year and more than a year old — were pending before six JJBs in the city till June this year, which the court noted was an increase of 44% in just the last six months. Till December last year, 1,320 such cases were pending.
The Delhi Government had submitted before the Division Bench that 3,965 cases involving petty offences were registered since March last year. In such cases, 2,857 juveniles were apprehended. As many as 2,443 out of 2,857 children were directly handed over to their parents or guardians.
Noting that the pendency was “certainly stigmatic” and affected the “dignity of the child”, the court ordered termination of all cases pertaining to petty offences, which were pending for more than six months, with immediate effect.
Further observing that the figures were confusing and that “everybody was singing a tune of their own” the court also pulled up the Delhi Police for not having data for over 400 juveniles who were not handed over to their parents. It stated that children alleged to be involved in petty crimes may not be required to be sent to observation homes at all.
The Juvenile Justice Act states that inquiry pertaining to minors involved in petty offences, for which imprisonment is a maximum of three years, shall stand terminated if it remains inconclusive till six months. The Delhi Government had later informed the Bench that it had closed nearly 900 such cases pending before the JJBs.
The Hindu spoke to several lawyers and stakeholders to understand what caused such high pendency, how COVID-19 added to the woes and why a long-drawn legal process deterred the child’s rehabilitation process.
Advocate Manish Jain, who has handled several juvenile cases, said the foremost problem that causes long delays is ascertaining the minor’s age. “Due to several legal technicalities, age verification itself takes around two to three years... Even the JJB’s infrastructure is not well-equipped to deal with such issues,” he said.
The lawyer added that often the age of a child, who in most cases is a vagabond, cannot be verified due to lack of identity documents, which further delays the case. “The juvenile might have different age in different documents or might not even have one... Because of this the trial in petty cases stretches for years,” the lawyer said. The JJB is supposed to verify the child’s age within a period of 30 days from the first production.
Mr. Jain also pointed out that unequal distribution of cases among JJBs is another reason for the increasing delay. “They (JJBs) are heavily overburdened. More such boards should be set up so that there is an equal police station-wise distribution of matters.”
Reluctant kin
“A ge verification becomes even more difficult when a juvenile might not have parents or kin to show the required identity documents. Even the ones they have, step back and refuse to identify them because of the stigma...if there is a discrepancy in age, the child is tried as an adult court but we further challenge the same and it takes more time,” said Advocate Ashok Verma.
The lawyer said that while such technical issues drag the cases for years, COVID-19 further restricted the JJB’s functioning, much like several adult courts.
Petty offences can be classified as anything from chain snatching and vehicle theft to burglaries and drug trafficking or distribution. Another lawyer, requesting anonymity, said when COVID-19 struck, the JJBs stopped functioning and minors were not presented before the Magistrate within 24 hours of being apprehended, neither through videoconferencing nor in-person.
“During the COVID lockdown, due to restricted functioning of courts, police simply lodged cases and did not formally apprehend the juveniles, so they were not presented before the Magistrate. Most cases were held up because the formal procedure begins only after first production of the juvenile and that did not happen,” the lawyer explained.
He said that this affects the child’s rehabilitation process as the criminal proceedings keep lingering despite the law stating otherwise.
‘Police laxity’
“The entire approach of the JJ Act is rehabilitation and reformation of the child, but due to police laxity and the JJB’s failure to pull them up for not going by the book, the minor’s after-care plan, which includes educational and vocational training, takes a back seat as the child still has a criminal case to fight,” the lawyer added. “Workload imbalance among JJBs also adds to the delay as some jurisdictions see more petty juvenile cases than others.”
Advocate Sayema Mobin, who has been representing juveniles for six years, also pointed out that often a child is apprehended on a certain day but is presented before the Magistrate two to three days later. “Sometimes, the Social Investigation Report of the child, which contains the family background, takes time, apart from frequent adjournments... These procedures take way more than six months and defeat the rehabilitation process,” she said.
After being presented before the board, the juveniles, especially those involved in petty offences, are generally granted bail and handed over to their parents. They are sent to an observation home only when the family is untraceable or on the court's discretion.
DCPCR chairperson Anurag Kundu said the JJBs should issue orders reprimanding the police for failure in producing juveniles before the board within time. “The cases have been pending much before COVID struck so that cannot be attributed as the primary reason... The Magistrates should come down heavily on police officers and make them follow the law,” Mr. Kundu said.
He added: “According to the Act, the JJB can also ascertain the child’s age from physical appearance but in most cases the juveniles were not being presented, so one had to rely on identity documents which delay the trial... It is a self-inflicted injury.”
He said the tag of being a criminal, especially for petty offences, has a negative psychological impact on the child’s mind, which hangs like a sword until the case is disposed of. “Even though the process of rehabilitation begins right after the first production of the child, the criminal proceedings that unfortunately go on for years affect the child’s mental health and ostracise him from society,” said Mr. Kundu.
In an enquiry report earlier this year, the DCPCR had stated that pursuing the proceedings in such offences beyond the legally permissible period amounted to “encroachment on the personal liberty” of the children.
“The stigma faced by the children and the tag of ‘criminal’ when cases are being pursued in Juvenile Justice Boards not only adversely affects the mental health of the children, but also denies them their familial love if kept in an institution, and personal freedom duly enshrined in the Constitution,” the report said.
A Delhi Police spokesperson said that all officers dealing with juvenile cases are adequately trained and sensitised to handle such cases with any shortcomings being strictly dealt with. “In cases involving minors, we maintain a pink file and produce the child before the JJB within the stipulated time,” the spokesperson said.
Published - December 14, 2021 12:34 am IST
