The Problems Of Juvenile Justice System In India

"In our country children are considered as a gift from the heaven and if the child is a boy then nothing could be more soothing for the family and from the very beginning children are exempted from severe punishment for any wrong committed on their part irrespective of the gravity of the act". A child is born innocent and if nurtured with tender care and attention, then he/she grows in positive way. Physical, mental, moral and spiritual development of the children makes them capable of realizing his/her fullest potential. On the contrary, harmful surroundings, negligence of basic needs, wrong company and other abuses may turn a child to a delinquent. With changing societal trends, children now appear to possess strong likes and dislikes and also show expressions that indicate maturity at a very early age. These qualities also make children more vulnerable to the designs of the criminality such as abusers, peddlers, and traffickers.

Moreover, the influence of the media on the psychosocial development of children is profound. With advent of communication technology in recent times, a child’s exposure to media including television, radio, music, video games and the Internet, has increased manifold. Children constitute about 40% of India’s population and India has a National Policy for Children declaring children to be a national asset. Even so majority of India’s children continue to be in difficult circumstances. India has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and obligated itself to work towards ensuring all the rights enshrined therein to all its children. India has witnessed an increase both in crimes committed by children and those committed against them.

There has been 97. 9% increase in crimes committed by children between 2003 and 2004, with more children being appeared for arson, theft and cheating. Over 33,000 juveniles, mostly between the age group of 16 to 18, have been arrested for crimes like rape and murder across Indian states in 2011, the highest in last decade. According to a Home Ministry data, of the total of 33,387 juveniles apprehended in 2011, 21,657 were in the 16-18 age group, 11,019 of 12-16 age group and 1,211 between 7-12 age group (PTI, 2013). Whereas, 32,145 such youngsters below 18 years of age were held in 2006, 34,527 in 2007, 34,507 in 2008, 33,642 in 2009 and 30,303 during 2010, the data said. The data also shows increasing cases of rape by juveniles. As many as 1,419 such cases were recorded in 2011 as compared to 399 cases in 2001, it said. It is pertinent to mention that a juvenile and five others were arrested by Delhi Police for brutally raping and assaulting a 23-year-old girl in the national capital on December 16, 2012.

The victim later succumbed to her injuries. The cases of murder by juveniles have also shown a surge in last ten years. As many as 531 youngsters below the age of 18 were apprehended for murder in 2001 as against 888 arrests between January and December 2011. According to the data, 6,770 juveniles were arrested in Maharashtra, 5,794 in Madhya Pradesh, 2,692 in Chhattisgarh, 2,542 in Rajasthan and 2,510 in Gujarat among others in 2011. In the same year, a total of 2,474 adolescents were arrested in Andhra Pradesh, 2,083 in Tamil Nadu, 1,204 in Uttar Pradesh and 1,126 in Bihar, the data said. Of the total number of juveniles arrested in 2011 under different sections of IPC and Special and Local Laws (SLL), 6,122 were illiterate, 12,803 were primary pass outs, 10,519 were above primary and below matriculation qualified and 4,443 were metric and higher secondary qualified, the data said. A total of 27,577 juveniles, who were held for criminal acts, were living with parents, 4,386 were living with guardians and 1,924 were homeless, the data said giving details of their family background.

Therefore, it is imperative to understand the concept of juvenile delinquency and delineatethe conditions giving rise to high rates of crimes and conflicts with law. Since the creation of the juvenile justice system at the turn of the twentieth century, juvenile justice system reforms have reshaped how adolescents are prosecuted and punished in the United States One important shift in the prosecution and punishment of adolescents is the increasingly frequent transfer of youth from the juvenile jurisdiction to the criminal jurisdiction previously reserved primarily for adult offenders. Over the past twenty-five years nearly every state has revised its laws or adopted new legislation to facilitate the transfer of adolescent offenders from the juvenile jurisdiction to the criminal jurisdiction As a result of this shift in policy, adolescents may be prosecuted in either of two jurisdiction types, depending on each state’s laws. Traditionally, the juvenile jurisdiction and the (adult) criminal jurisdiction have relied on very different models of justice regarding case processing, evaluating offenders, and punishing offenders. The criminal jurisdiction often is characterized by of course, referring to the “criminal jurisdiction” and the “juvenile jurisdiction” each as a single entity overlooks much of the variation among individual courts within each jurisdiction type.

Since the creation of the juvenile justice system in 1899, juvenile jurisdiction judges have always had some leeway for transferring adolescents from the juvenile jurisdiction to the criminal jurisdiction, though this was a fairly rare occurrence. The recent spate of new laws mandating or reference to a criminal justice model, and the juvenile jurisdiction described by reference to a juvenile justice model. Relative to a juvenile justice model, a criminal justice model suggests that case processing is formal, evaluation of offenders is centered on offense-relevant criteria rather than offender-relevant criteria, and the primary goals of sentencing are to punish and deter rather than to rehabilitate. Conversely, relative to a criminal justice model, a juvenile justice model suggests that case processing is informal, evaluation of offenders focuses on offender-relevant criteria rather than offense-relevant criteria, and the primary goal of sentencing is to rehabilitate rather than to punish. It is unclear whether the prosecution and punishment of adolescents in criminal and juvenile jurisdictions reflect these two models of justice. For example, one might imagine that due to the immaturity of adolescent offenders, a juvenile justice model implying reduced culpability for youth actually might be used when adolescents are prosecuted in the criminal jurisdiction.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that due to recent efforts to “get tough” on juvenile crime, juvenile jurisdictions might practice a criminal justice model whereby offenders are punished severely andmproportional to the severity of their offenses. The Apprentices Act, 1850 was the first legislation dealing with children in conflict with law, providing for binding over of children under the age of 15 years found to have committed petty offences as apprentices. Subsequently, the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 provided that children up to the age of 15 years sentenced to imprisonment may be sent to reformatory cell. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was enacted by our parliament in order to provide care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication of certain matters relating to, and disposition of, delinquent juveniles as a uniform system of juvenile justice mechanism throughout our country. Under the Act of 1986, Section 2(a) defined the term juvenile as a "boy who has not attained the age of 16 years and a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years" but later on the parliament enacted Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (herein after 'JJ Act') and the age bar was raised to 18 years for both girl and boy.

The JJ Act, 2000 lays down that juvenile in conflict with law may be kept in an observation home while children in need of care and protection need to be kept in a children home during the pendency of proceedings before the competent authority. This provision is in contradistinction with the earlier Acts which provided for keeping all children in an observation home during the pendency of their proceedings, presuming children to be innocent till proved guilty. The maximum detention could be imposed on a juvenile is for 3 years remand to Special Home irrespective of the gravity of offence committed by him and JJ Act, 2000 immunes the child who is less than 18 Years of age at the time of the commission of the alleged offence and from trial through Criminal Court or any punishment under Criminal Law in view of Section 17 of the Juvenile Act. The new Bill comes in the backdrop of outrage after a minor convicted in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case was handed a three-year term in a reform home. Activists, however, have criticized the move saying that India moved from penal law to reformative law by repealing the 1989 JJ Act and enacting the JJ Act 2000. Lowering the age or having any provision to deviate children from the juvenile justice system to criminal justice system is not acceptable, said activists. However, the Bill lays down that in no case a juvenile involved in a heinous crime will be sentenced to death or life imprisonment either when tried under the provisions of JJ Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Some of the new provisions involve children in conflict zones. Recruiting child soldiers by militant groups is an offence in the new Bill, punishable with up to seven years' rigorous imprisonment or Rs 5 lakh fine or both. Besides, the draft widens the definition of corporal punishment by including physical and verbal abuse. The draft Bill proposes stringent punishment for those who subject "a child to corporal punishment causing hurt and emotional distress for the child". If the offender is an employee of an institution dealing with children, he can be dismissed from service for repeat offence. Even the management of such institution can be sentenced to up to three-year jail and Rs 1 lakh fine for non-compliance or non-cooperation in any probe. Ragging of students within or outside an institution is punishable by up to three years in jail and up to Rs 1 lakh fine. Anybody found to abet or propagate ragging can land up in jail, too.

The proposed Bill also provides for facilitating faster adoption of children and setting up foster care homes. The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) would be a statutory body with powers to regulate inter-country adoptions along with issuing guidelines on adoption and related matter. The Bill also makes it mandatory for all child care institutions to register or face stiff penalty for non-compliance.