There was never any doubt that the progressive juvenile law enacted in 2000 was not being implemented properly and that there was a need to revisit its provisions. In many ways, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015, passed by the Lok Sabha, is a forward-looking and comprehensive enactment that provides for dealing with children in conflict with the law and those requiring care and protection. However, its laudable features have been overshadowed by one provision that states that children in the 16-18 age group will henceforth be tried as adults if they are accused of committing ‘heinous offences’. The government believes that the provision will help address public disquiet over the perception that young offenders are getting away with light punishment after committing crimes such as murder and rape. However, child welfare activists have been saying there is no need to carve out an exception for children in a particular age group solely based on the perceived heinousness of the offence. The division into two groups — one below 16 and another above 16 — goes against the core principle that all children should be treated as such till the age of 18. This age has been fixed based on studies in child behaviour and the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child. A parliamentary Standing Committee opposed the change, noting that subjecting juveniles to the adult judicial system would go against the objective of protecting all children from the rigours of adult justice. It noted that the Supreme Court had not agreed with the view that children involved in certain offences should be tried as adults.
In response to >criticism , the government has made some changes before getting the Act passed in the Lok Sabha. It has dropped a patently unconstitutional section (Clause 7 in the Bill) that sought to treat as adults, children allegedly committing an offence after the age of 16 but getting arrested only after they are 21. Also, the government has tweaked the wording involved, saying that what the Juvenile Justice Board will hold is a “preliminary assessment” rather than a “preliminary enquiry” into the mental and physical capacity of the child to commit such an offence. It has added by way of explanation that it is not a ‘trial’, obviously to address concerns that the procedure to assess the child’s capacity itself may amount to a regular trial. The prospects of the government making further changes before the Bill goes to the Rajya Sabha appear to be bleak. The question before the legislature, and society at large, is this: do we preserve the scope for rehabilitation among young offenders through a benign juvenile law, or derive satisfaction from long prison terms for them?
