ROLE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION: The Indian legal system plays a critical role in the preservation of
children’s rights through enacting numerous legislation. In today’s world, judicial activism is a
powerful instrument for protecting children’s rights, especially prevention from child
maltreatment, trafficking, and sexual abuse, among other things. The Juvenile Justice Act of
1986, which changed the prior Children Act of 1960, was passed to comply with the provisions
to the recommendations made in the U.N’ Fundamental Executive Regulations of Young
Offenders, which were ratified in November 1985. The aforementioned Act was divided into 63
sec and 7 chapters, and it was applicable throughout India. The Act’s main goal is to ensure
protection and support, as well as rehabilitation, training, and treatment, for mistreated juvenile
delinquents. In today’s world, juvenile crime is a big problem.

This is a critical issue since, according to the population composition, the youth in the age
bracket of 15-19 account for approximately 100,215,890 people, or 9.7% of the entire
population of India. It affects not just the generations, but the entire family as well as the entire
neighbourhood. The percentage of crimes committed by minors aged 15-16 has climbed
considerably during the last few decades. Formative year events, dominating virility, upbringing,
economic deprivation, backwardness, and other variables may all contribute to the psyche behind
the wrongdoing in the crime. Children aged 6 to 10 are an easy tool for carrying out unlawful or
criminal activities. Because children’s minds have a naïve and manipulative nature, they can be
enticed for a little cost.

In the Nirbhaya Gang rape case1 one of the offender was a minor, aged about 17 years, and
was just 6 months away from turning to 18 years, forced the Indian legal system to convict him
as a juvenile instead of a full-fledged offender. This brought a spark in the debates and
discussion regarding the juvenile justice system in India.Today (After Nirbhaya case) many
people are aware that a separate Justice System exists for Juveniles. Many people are not yet
aware how Juvenile justice system works. After the incident of Nirbhaya people turned
sentimental and expressed their hostile attitude towards the decision of the court. They demanded
a death sentence for the child involved in the Nirbhaya case.

1
MUKESH and ANRS. vs. NCT DELHI , 2017 SCC
There was roaring in parliament and the new law (Juvenile Justice Care and protection of
children 2015) came into existence in India. It is a comprehensive provision for children alleged
and found to be in conflict with the law. It also deals with children in need of care and
protection. This law is enacted taking into consideration conventions of Rights of the child and
other related international instruments.The government of India acceded the convention of
Rights of the Child (CRC) on 11 Dec.1992.

Meaning of juvenile : Juvenile comes from the Latin' juvenīlis ' , meaning “youthful.” The term
‘Juvenile’ means the person who has not completed his/her age of majority .i.e. He/ she is below
18years of age. In the law a juvenile is defined as a person who is not old enough to be held
responsible for criminal acts.

Juvenile Court:- There is a committee structure aimed at investigating and hearing juvenile
issues that violate the law.The board of directors consists of the presiding judge and two social
workers, one of whom must be a female. The law provides that the board of directors may not
regulate and operate a regular courthouse under any circumstances. The chief judge’s decision is
final. Juvenile Court Special Procedures: The law provides procedures for juvenile offenders.

DEVELOPMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015

Prior to the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, 2000 and 1986, there existed the Children Act of 1960
that aimed to give effects to the international responses towards the issue of Juvenile Justice by
which they provided a uniform policy that protected the interests and rights of a Juvenile and that
looked at care, treatment, rehabilitation and development of a child per se. But with the recent
developments in the international community and subsequent emergence of the involvement of
Juveniles in crime, the Indian lawmakers are compelled to come forward with new, progressive,
and stricter laws for the concerned Juvenile system in the country. As a result, the Juvenile
Justice act of 1986 then Juvenile Justice act of 2000 and recently the Juvenile Justice act of 2015
was passed by the Parliament. Once former Chief Justice of India, Justice V.K. Krishna Iyer
stated that we need penal code because the child is the father of a man and if we’re neglecting
the underdevelopment in children, then we would be guilty of many faults and errors related to
abandoning our children.
In the last few decades, the crime rate by the children under the age of 16 years has increased.
The reason of increasing crime rate is may be due to the upbringing environment of the child,
economic conditions, lack of education and the parental care. These are the some of the basic
reasons. And the most disappointing part is that, children (especially under the age group of 5 to
7 years) now a days are used as tool for committing the crime as at that this stage their mind is
very innocent and can easily be manipulated.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A JUVENILE AND A CHILD

As per the section 2(c) of the Children Act, 1960; during being in force till 1986 stated, “child”
as any boy who has not yet attained the age of sixteen years or any girl who has not yet attained
the age of eighteen years.

The sub-section 12 of Section 2 of The Juvenile (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 a “child” means
any that person who hasn’t yet completed eighteen years of his age. The Act divides the term
“child” into the two groups: –

1. A child who is in conflict with law

A child who has committed any offence and was under the age of eighteen years at the time of
commission of offence then he/she basically termed as “a child who is in conflict with law”
while the second category is “a child who is in need of care and protection”, it means any child
as defined under Section 14 of the Act itself not having any charges on its head.,

Child and juvenile are almost same but have some different implications and contexts which
separates them. Child is considered simply as an innocent person but juvenile has something
negative legal dimension attached to it. Child implies being young and naïve while juvenile
indicates either immaturity or a young criminal. In lame words it can be said that child is itself
called a juvenile if he is accused of any crime.
 INDIA’S CONSTITUTION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

The Indian Constitution is regarded as the country’s fundamental law. Citizens’ rights and
responsibilities are outlined in the Constitution. It also makes provisions for the operation of the
government machinery. Part III of the Constitution provides Basic Rights for its citizens, while
Part IV provides DPSP, which serve as general guidance in phrasing laws and policies. The
Constitution has established some fundamental rights and provisions, particularly for the child’s
welfare. For example: –

1. All children between the ages of 6 and 14 have the right to free & compulsory primary
education (Article 21A).
2. Under the age of 14, you have the right to be protected from any hazardous employment
(Article 24).
3. Right to be guarded from any type of assault by an adult (Article 39€).
4. The right to be free of trafficking in human beings and the compelled bonded labour
framework (Article (Article 39).
5. The right to adequate nutrition and a decent quality of life (Article 47).
6. Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution grants specific power and authority to states to
enact specific laws for the advancement and improvement of women & children.
7. As a result, when drafting the Juvenile Act, 2015, lawmakers took into account all of the
implementation outlined in the Constitution to ensure that children’s rights are protected
in all feasible aspects.

CASE LAW 1: Sheela Barse & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [1986 AIR 1773]

This petition was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court for getting directions regarding the release
of children, below 16 years of age, from jails. The petitioners also prayed for the production of
complete information about children in jails, and the existence of juvenile courts, homes, and
schools in the country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, acting on the petition, directed - State Legal
Aid & Advice Board to send two lawyers to each jail within the State once a week to provide
legal assistance to children (below 16 years of age), who are detained in prisons. All State
Governments to report the number of children's homes, remand homes & observation homes for
children in their States, and the number of inmates in each of those institutions. States to properly
enforce the ‘Children’s Act’ enacted by them. They must file affidavits to show cause why they
are not implementing those Acts. District and Sessions Judges to make regular visits to the
District Jails and to take particular care of child prisoners.

CASE LAW 2 :Sheela Barse & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1986 SCALE (2) 230]

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme gave the following directions relating to juveniles: In
cases,where a child has been accused of an offence that is punishable with imprisonment of
fewer than 7 years, the investigation must be completed within 3 months from the lodging of the
FIR and the trial must be completed within 6 months from the filing of the charge sheet. Children
must not be lodged in jails under any circumstance. Remand and observation homes must be set
up by the State Governments. If there is no accommodation in these remand or observation
homes, then the children should be released on bail. To ensure complete uniformity, the Union
Government should enact a Children’s Act for the trial of children below 16 years of age and
ensure rehabilitation of such children.

CASE LAW 3: Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2009 SCC 13 211]

Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the upper age limit for male children to be considered
juveniles was 16 years. But, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
(“JUVENILE JUSTICE Act, 2000”) treats children up to 18 years as juveniles. So, the primary
issue before the court, in this case, was, whether juvenile justice Act, 2000 applies to offences
that have been committed before the coming into force of the juvenile justice Act, 2000. The
court held that upon conjoint reading of Sections 2 (k), 2 (l), 7A, 20, and 49, it is made clear that
all the persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of the commission of the offence
even before the enforcement of juvenile justice Act, 2000, would be treated as juveniles. It
would be immaterial that the claim of juvenility was raised after the accused attained the age of
18 years.

CASE LAW 4 : MUKESH and ANRS. Vs. NCT DELHI , 2017 SCC (NIRBHAYA GANG
RAPE CASE)

Facts of the case : twenty-three-year-old woman, a para-medical student, who had gone with
her companion to watch a film at PVR Select City Walk Mall, Saket, on a breaking cold night
got into a means of transport at Munirka transport stand to be dropped at a specific spot; One of
accused persuaded them to get on a vacant transport with colored/tinted windows. Where they
were attacked by six guys, one of whom was a minor, aged 17. The companion, when he
attempted to secure Nirbhaya (“Nirbhaya” is the pseudonym used for the rape victim)., was
pummeled and beaten by the culprits. Nirbhaya was explicitly damaged and sexually violated,
her body was mutilated, and private parts were ruptured to give vent to their degenerate sexual
appetite. Her intestinal tracts were pulled out, and private parts were ruined and mutilated and
she became a prey to the lust of gang of six and brutal assault. The companion of the young lady
was able to survive regardless of being tossed outside the transport alongside the young lady and
the endeavor of the charged appellants to run over them got vain as Nirbhaya and her
companion, by their slight movement, could escape from being squashed under the transport, and
the appellants left them believing that they were not anymore alive. Lying exposed, as the
garments were expelled from their bodies, they yelled for help and as favorable luck would have
it, the late evening patrolling vehicle, a motorcycle, showed up and the said man, Raj Kumar,
gave the shirt to her companion and reached the control room from which a Bolero watch van
came and they brought a bed sheet and torn it in two sections and gave a piece to each so that
they could cover themselves and feel civil. The PCR van took the victims to the Safdarjung
Hospital where treatment initiated. Later, Nirbhaya died of various organ failure, internal
bleeding, and cardiac arrest on the 29 th December, at a hospital in Singapore where she had been
taken to with the expectation that her life could be saved. There was a great deal of social shock
because of the gruesome occurrence. There was a great deal of candlelight march, solidarity
movements, and protests. The shock was not confined to India, the entire world had formed an
opinion about India.

Judgement of the case : The court held that there should be consideration of both mitigating and
aggravating factor and there should be a balance between the two. In this case there were
mitigating factors like the dependent and ailing parents, the age of the convicts, behavior in jail,
no criminal antecedents, post-crime remorse but the aggravating factors outweighed them. The
court held that the conspiracy involving gang rape and murder inside moving bus was brutal,
barbaric, and diabolic and the victim’s companion was assaulted and brutally beaten and robbed.
Moreover, they tried to run the bus over her after throwing them out of the bus naked on a
wintery night. The evidence clearly displayed that the victim’s internal organs were perforated
and slayed open due to repeated insertion of iron rods and hands and caused grave injuries to the
victim who later succumbed to her injuries. The convicts had also tried to destroy evidence by
washing the bus and burning the clothes of the deceased after that they distributed the loot
among themselves which confirms death sentence. A committee was formed and criminal law
(amendment) act, 2013 was enacted to tackle sexual offences effectively. The court mentions
that the mitigating circumstances were not enough to take the case out of the category of rarest of
the rare case and hence, affirmed death sentence.