The debate on the > Juvenile Justice Bill had been getting louder, with several developments unfolding in the horrific December 16, 2012 Delhi gang rape case, till the Rajya Sabha finally passed it on Tuesday.
Ahead of release of ‘Raju’ (the name used to refer to the convict in this case, as the >Juvenile Justice Act does not permit the disclosure of the person’s identity), Minister for Women and Child Development Maneka Gandhi had said that she would ask the authorities to keep a “close watch” on him after his release. She did not flinch when she said “there is nothing we can do about it until or unless he commits another crime”, indicating that she was sure he would commit a crime again.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
An important concern was raised by Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain. Mr. Jain said he was dissatisfied with the follow-up action, which required a plan that spread over two-three years post the release of the convict, prepared by the Rehabilitation Management Committee that was set up under the JJ Act for this purpose. Mr. Jain also said the juvenile’s mental health report was not available. Should Raju pay the price for being deprived of his liberty — which he is entitled to by the law — because the management committee did not submit a crucial part of the rehabilitation plan?
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
An emotionally disturbed young person such as Raju would need a comprehensive and long-term mental health plan. This would include services such as psychiatric assessment and intervention, intensive therapy and counselling services, day-to-day supervision, monitoring and modelling of positive and socially appropriate behaviour, and life skills education. He would also need support from mental health professionals and support systems to help him learn the skills necessary to live in community after a long period of isolation.
The media has been full of reports that Raju has not been reformed, and worse, according to the Intelligence Bureau, he may have been radicalised by another juvenile charged with involvement in terrorist activities and may even join some extremist group. His stay at the special home was meant to provide him with access to measures that would enable him to take responsibility for his actions and become a responsible citizen. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that juveniles are rehabilitated and not radicalised while in state custody?
And what about the victim’s family? Have the girl’s family members been offered counselling support to help deal with the tragedy? What about the girl’s friend, who was a witness to the act? The constant media glare that they have been subjected to may have probably delayed or obstructed rather than enabled their healing. One wonders whether the family has even been allowed the privacy to grieve not only their daughter’s death but the loss of a life as they knew it. Has the state even explored the possibility of a restorative justice approach rather than the retributive model that has been presented as the only one that will ensure justice for the girl and her family?
As for Raju, what options does he really have? Like many other young persons who don’t have the skills or the means to find employment, Raju may be unable to find legal and dignified means to earn a living. The relentless media attention, public shaming, and social exclusion over the last three years may have most certainly had a huge impact on his mental health. He may be acutely aware that when he is released from the special home, he won’t have friends and family members welcoming him home. What he will be going back to will be state surveillance despite having served his legal time, threats of vigilante justice, social exclusion and poverty.
For those of us who believe that Raju has been ‘let off leniently’ and is going to ‘walk free’ again, please think again. Is he really going to ‘walk free’ ever again?
(Kalpana Purushothaman is a Bengaluru-based senior counselling psychologist and researcher working with children in conflict with the law. )