The editorial criticizes the hasty passing of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2014 in response to public pressure rather than reasoned debate. It argues the bill contradicts other laws and recommendations from committees that define a juvenile as under 18 years old. While public pressure after the 2012 Delhi gang rape was understandable, demonstrations demanding changes to the juvenile law were orchestrated and selective data on juvenile crimes was used to influence parliamentarians. The bill was passed without adequately considering its impact on rehabilitation of juvenile offenders and risks of pushing more youth into crime.
The editorial criticizes the hasty passing of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2014 in response to public pressure rather than reasoned debate. It argues the bill contradicts other laws and recommendations from committees that define a juvenile as under 18 years old. While public pressure after the 2012 Delhi gang rape was understandable, demonstrations demanding changes to the juvenile law were orchestrated and selective data on juvenile crimes was used to influence parliamentarians. The bill was passed without adequately considering its impact on rehabilitation of juvenile offenders and risks of pushing more youth into crime.
The editorial criticizes the hasty passing of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2014 in response to public pressure rather than reasoned debate. It argues the bill contradicts other laws and recommendations from committees that define a juvenile as under 18 years old. While public pressure after the 2012 Delhi gang rape was understandable, demonstrations demanding changes to the juvenile law were orchestrated and selective data on juvenile crimes was used to influence parliamentarians. The bill was passed without adequately considering its impact on rehabilitation of juvenile offenders and risks of pushing more youth into crime.
Unjustified Haste Was the juvenile justice law changed in response to manufactured pressure?
n the end the lawmakers gave in to the mood of the public. By
passing the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2014 on 22 December, the Rajya Sabha demonstrated how public pressure and the fear of going against this so-called public sentiment is erasing the space for reasoned debate. Such a debate was essential before this law which goes against the advice of the parliamentary standing committee as well as the Justice J S Verma Committeewas passed. It stipulates that anyone between the ages of 16 and 18 years, charged with a crime for which the sentence is seven years or more, can be tried under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of the Juvenile Justice Act. By doing this, the law not only contradicts other laws pertaining to children that accept 18 years as the age defining a juvenile, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that India has signed, but it rejects the belief that reform and rehabilitation is the best course to follow while dealing with children and adolescents who fall foul of the law. Unlike the demonstrations that followed the dastardly gang rape and subsequent death of Jyoti Singh on 16 December 2012, the demonstrations demanding changes in the law were not spontaneous. They coincided with the release of the youngest convict who was released after the mandatory three years, and the emotional appeal by Asha Devi to the government to stall his release. The very visible presence of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP)student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and linked to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Partyat the public demonstrations could not be a mere coincidence. So was a mothers genuine sadness manipulated to build up pressure on parliamentarians? While the initial push for a change in the rape law came about due to public pressure following the 2012 gang rape, we should also remember that the Justice Verma Committee, while considering changes in the criminal law, laid out the context, looked closely at other global examples, and then prescribed changes. It took on board a range of conflicting viewpoints and arguments before coming to a conclusion. Despite similar pressures at that time, the Verma Committee had urged that the age limit for juveniles remains at 18 years. This recommendation, backed by many others, is based not only on the well-established 8
concept of reform and rehabilitation, but on inputs about
the development of children into adults. The amendment has summarily rejected all of this. Although the law has been passed, we must question why it was done in such haste. Asha Devis appeal that the juvenile charged with raping her daughter should be held back needed sympathetic handling. She should have been explained that this was not possible under law, or even if the law was changed it would not apply retroactively. Instead, incessant media coverage amplified the impact of her appeal, to the point of drowning out all other dimensions that surround the issue of juveniles in conflict with the law. A mood was manufactured. Misleading statistics were bandied around about the increase in juvenile crimes. Even the Union Minister of Women and Child Development, Maneka Gandhi, who steered this bill and was its main proponent, chose to quote selective data on juvenile crime to push her case. The reality is that juvenile crime has remained about the same as a proportion of overall crime, roughly 1%1.5%. It is also well known that the majority of the crimes for which juveniles are charged have to do with theft and burglary. The concern about one juvenile charged with a heinous crime walking free should not cloud our judgment on the overall picture of juvenile crime in the country or the kind of children who fall foul of the law. Furthermore, the fact that stranger rapes form a very small proportion of all rapes remained unaddressed as always and thus marital rape and other forms of sexual violence were again ignored. What is most unfortunate is the manner in which concern for womens safety was used to demand changes in the juvenile law. There is simply no equivalence between the two. As child rights advocates have emphasised, bringing juveniles under the ambit of adult law could push more young people into crime. India does not need laws pandering to retributive justice. What it does need is a debate on strengthening the system dealing with juvenile offenders and protective measures to ensure that children of the poor, who cannot fight against unfair detention, do not end up bearing the burden of this reversal of existing provisions in the law. decEMBER 26, 2015