TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

II YEAR II SEMESTER B.COM LL.B (HONS) DEGREE COURSE

CRIMES-II
Juvenile Justice Amendment Act 2015
Name of the Supervisor: Golda Sahoo

Submitted by
K.Rigved Prasad
Second Year B.com.LLB (Hons.)
Tamil Nadu National Law School
Trichy , India

Marks Awarded

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO Topic Page Number

1) Acknowledgement 3

2) Declaration 4

3) Introduction 5

4) Philosophy behind Juvenile Justice 7

5) Juvenile Justice Amendment Act 2015 9

6) Conclusion 14

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people. I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to all those who
helped me in completing this project.

A special thanks to the course faculty, Golda Sahoo who took keen interest in the project work
and guided me by providing stimulating suggestions and constant encouragement. She helped
and guided me in my project, especially in writing this report.

I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of the staff of TNNLS
who gave us the permission to use all required material and resources necessary to complete
the project.

3
 DECLARATION

I K. Rigved Prasad , doing my 2nd year B.com L.lb(Hons) in Tamil Nadu National Law School,
hereby declare that this project work undertaken and submitted by me as a part of the Internal
Assessment for Crimes-I paper is an original work and is not submitted to any other university
or examination.

Date: 31/03/2017

Place: TNNLS, Trichy

4
 INTRODUCTION

The frightful incident of raised many debates. And the prime issue among these was the
involvement of the juvenile perpetrator, who was only six months short from becoming adult.1
This attracts the law of Juvenile Justice (care and protection) Act, 2000 and the culprit was
sentenced by the court only for three-year confinement.2 Against this decision of Apex Court,
several protests were made, which demanded amendment in the existing Juvenile Justice Law.3

However, this case is not only reason for the Government to introduce this bill. The Ministry
of Women and Child Development justified the introduction of bill with several other reasons.
The prime two reasons of all were, first, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was facing
implementation and procedural delays. Secondly, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)
Reports indicate increase in the Juvenile Crime between the age group of 16-18 years (i.e.1%
in 2003 to 1.2% in 2013).4 Along with the huge proponents, there were some child activists,
who criticized this Act on many grounds: first, stating it to be retributive not reformative.
According to H.V.S. Murthy, the former president of the Mysuru Bar Association, the new
Juvenile Justice Bill violates the very essence of Juvenile Justice Act.5 Secondly, it violated
various Fundamental Rights. Third, this Act does not take consideration of other relevant factor
like social background and psychological issues. It has been well established by many
neuroscientist that in adolescence period, child faces tremendous physiological, hormonal,
emotional and structural change in the human brain, which subjects the child to great
vulnerability. Fourth, this Act can also open the flood-gate of cases by angry parents who wants
to resist their children from getting into love relationship.

The prologue of The New Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of children), 2015, has
introduced some of the remarkable changes in the existing Juvenile Law. One of such major

1
Abantika Ghosh, In Fact: New Juvenile Justice Act on the Way, but Debate Continues, THE INDIAN
EXPRESS, Mar. 15, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/in-fact-new-juvenile-justice-act-on-
theway-but-debate-continues/.
2
Section 2(k), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
3
Section 15, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
4
TWO HUNDRED the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA
SABHA TWO HUNDRED SIXTY FOURTH REPORT Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Bill,
2014 (PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA).
5
Apoorva Shankar, The juvenile justice bill, 2015: All you need to know, The official blogsite of PRS
Legislative Research (2015), http://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/?p=3610.

5
changes is, juvenile of age group of 16 to 18 are to be tried like an adult. Also, the person who
has attained the age of twenty one while in sentence will be send to the jail for rest of the time
span. However, all these decisions will be taken by the Juvenile Justice Board. This paper has
highlighted on various controversial issues relating to new Juvenile Justice Act with special
reference to the views of different activists. Along with this, the paper has focused on the
anticipated situation which may arise when the New Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 will be read
with Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act, 2006. Accordingly, this paper is divided in different parts. The first part has focused on
controversy, focusses on the philosophy revolving around Juvenile Justice. In the second part
of the paper, focus has been on the Juvenile Justice Act and the issues relating to the maturity
of the juvenile and why it is necessary to take consideration of same.

6
 PHILOSOPHY BEHIND JUVENILE JUSTICE

There are two essential elements when it comes to Juvenile Justice, one being the separation
of children from adults; the second one is reformation and rehabilitation of children. The origin
of contemporary Juvenile Justice dates back to 1826 in New York, where there was a House of
Refuge set up which marked the inception of this philosophy.6 Sociological schools extraneous
causes with respect to ones environment when a particular criminal commits a crime is present
for both the adults and the children. But the same is not applicable to unsound mind or an insane
mind.7 The philosophy questions the very capacity of the brain of a minor child (below 18) to
comprehend what is happening around him/her and weigh the consequences of that persons
actions. The conclusion was in the negative and therefore minority remained a defence since
then. The philosophy provides complete immunity to children below seven years and a
qualified immunity to children from age 7-18 in order to reform the juvenile delinquents.8

The objective changes to protecting the accused when it comes to juvenile delinquents and not
punishment. The rationale behind it is that unlike an adult the juvenile is incapable of tolerating
the pressure of the particular childs circumstances and therefore the decision take by the
juvenile to commit that crime lacks mens rea.9 On the other hand the United States of America
are planning to increase the age of criminal responsibility to 21 than 18 because the maturation
of the human brain takes as long as 21 years also. In China the age of criminal responsibility is
higher i.e. 25 years.10 The Chinese Juveniles are of two categories which are Juveniles below
18 and from 18-25 the adults are classified as youth.11 Minors and youth is are two different
but overlapping concepts the former being mostly legal but the latter being social. However,
their reformative strategy is preventive which brings us two the second essential element which
is reformation.

6
Sanford J. Fox, Philosophy and the Principles of Punishment in the Juvenile Court, Family Law Quarterly,
Vol. 8, American Bar Association, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/25739105, last accessed on 22-03-
2017 16:06 UTC

7
IPC section general defences
8
Supra note, 6
9
10
Xiaoming Chen, Educating and Correcting Juvenile Delinquents: The Chinese Approaches, Journal of
Correctional Education (1974-), Vol. 51, Correctional Education Association, available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41971953, last accessed on 22-03-2017 16:06 UTC
11
Ibid

7
Clearly, the guilt of a minor is comparatively lesser than that of an adult since clear intention
and mens rea cannot be established. Hence instead of just punishing the sentence is a
combination of mitigated punishment and reformative measures. In China their policy on
Juvenile delinquency is unique and more effective because it is preventive. But in India it
includes mitigated punishment and reformation. The existing JJ Act 2000 satisfies the test for
reasonable classification, as it is premised on the understanding that children cannot be held to
the same standards of culpability as adults because of their developmental immaturity and their
amenability to rehabilitative interventions. But, the proposed amendments do not. The
Preamble to the JJ Bill, 2014 states that it seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to
children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection
by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social
re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters
in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation through processes provided, and
institutions and bodies established.. In Salil Bali v. Union of India12 and Dr. Subramanian
Swamy v. Raju13, the Supreme Court emphasized that, [t]he essence of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder in 2007, is
restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and re- integration of children in
conflict with law into mainstream society.

12
(2013) 7 SCC 705.
13
S.L.P. (Crl) No.1953 of 2014

8
 JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015

The Delhi gang-rape case erupted aggression all over India regarding the lack of security to
women in India and the consistent tolerance that law exhibits to such instances. A juvenile was
one of the offenders in the same case and when such an offender was treated under Juvenile
Justice Act of 2000, the compatibility of the Juvenile Justice system in India with respect to
the ground reality was called into question. Therefore the Parliamentary Standing committee
was set up in order to give the legislature an insight into the legal reforms that could help better
the situation. The committee in its report has dealt with treatment of Juvenile offenders of
heinous crimes (rape and murder).However the suggestions of the report was clearly
disregarded and the Lok Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice Bill of 2015 on 7 th May, 2015 and
the Rajya Sabha passed the bill on 22nd December, 2015, replacing the old Juvenile Justice Act
of 2000. 14 The Preamble states that adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and
disposal of matters but the following paragraphs argues on how the amendment failed to
achieve its objective.15

ASSUMPTIONS AND MISCONCEPTIONS UNDER WHICH THE BILL WAS

PASSED

The main objective of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 was to provide rehabilitation and
reformation to the juvenile, who are considered to be vulnerable and weak which the law is
consistent in protecting. The law considers children below the age of 18 not to have a sound
enough, stable mind and are at an impressionable stage. The parliament enacted such a law to
oblige to the international standards set up in the Convention of Rights of the Child (CRC).16
Countries all over the world including India had chosen that the juvenile age limit to be 18 that
is the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR), for the reason that they are
vulnerable and it is duty of the civilised society and the Government to reform them. The
current Act also goes against the principle of innocence that had been inculcated into the

14
See, Rajya Sabha passes Juvenile Justice Bill, Firstpost available at http://www.firstpost.com/india/juvenile-
justice-bill-after-heated-debate-public-outcry-new-law-passed-in-rajya-sabha-2555978.html

15
Preamble, JJ Amendment Bill, 2015
16
See Preamble to the JJ Act,2000

9
Juvenile Justice System in the Act of 2015 itself.17 It had been observed in the United States of
America, where this move to reduce the age limit from 18 to 16 had been made over 10 year
ago, it did not have much of an impact on the crime rates. The Supreme Court of India also
dismissed a plea to treat Juvenile offender as an adult since it would be in contrary to the
intentions of the legislature and the countrys international obligations.18 It was because when
young children were tried as adults almost 80 % or more of them in each state became criminals
in the future and there was no reformation19.

The logic behind introducing this Act was the assumption that if a juvenile has committed a
heinous crime when he is between the ages of 16-18, which is the time period, preceding to
attaining maturity of the mind, is to be treated as one who has already attained the maturity to
contain and evaluate such a criminal responsibility because that juvenile committed an heinous
offence. In other words, the assumption was that rehabilitating juveniles who have committed
heinous offences was not possible.

Another reason for formulating such a Bill was because of the increase in sexual offences
committed by juveniles against women in 2013.The increase in the number of offences can be
the result of an overall increase in crimes against women. The crime rate against women as a
whole in India has increased by 32.1 % in case of rape and 35.6 % in kidnapping and abduction
of girls and women20. The number of crimes committed by Juveniles in India are 1.2% of the
whole number of crimes committed in India. Moreover, only 7 % of the 1.2% are heinous
crimes. The average of juvenile crime to total crimes in India has only been 0.8%21.Therefore,
taking steps to reduce violence and sexual offences against women would be more appropriate
and also would automatically reduce juvenile crimes against women rather than reducing the
age for criminal responsibility which will serve counter-productive as observed in the US.

17
See also, Section 3(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of Children) Rules 2007
18
Swamy vs. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390
19
Article Juvenile Justice Bill: 23 US states have moved to reverse approach to child law that India is taking
available at http://scroll.in/article/777569/juvenile-justice-bill-23-us-states-have-moved-to-reverse-approach-
to-child-law-that-india-is-taking

20
See,264th Parliamentary standing committee Report , Observations and recommendations of the committee
at a glance, available at http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Juvenile%20Justice/SC%20report-
%20Juvenile%20justice.pdf
21
Crimes in India 2013 report by National Crimes Record Bureau

10
Heinous crimes were being committed by juveniles in India even before 2000 and the Bill was
passed in 2000 to protect the feeble minded for the purpose of reformation. The scenario of a
juvenile committing murders and rapes are not something which was discovered right now. It
has to be understood that Juvenile crimes sum up to an average of 0.8 % of the total crimes, is
a very minimal number in comparison to the Juvenile population which is about 42% of the
total population of India22. It is almost impossible to bring the level of atrocious crimes by
juvenile to 0 %. The brutality in which the Delhi gang rape incident took place erupted protests
all over the country. The media frenzy and the protests were the factors which drove the Bill
through both the houses. The Rajya Sabha had discussed and passed such a debatable and
imperative Bill in one day. Both the Parliamentary Standing Committee 23 and the Justice
Verma Committee24 were not in support of reducing the age of criminal responsibility for
children committing heinous crimes, which were disregarded. It appeared that the politicians
were under some pressure from the feminist groups and organizations across the country.

There were two assumptions that were ignored and had not been discussed while passing the
Bill:

1) It implies that Juvenile (16-18 of age) committing heinous crimes are not doing so
because of their vulnerability and thus are to be treated, under Indian Penal Code of
1860, as adults to deter them from committing such heinous crimes;

2) It also implies that children from 16-18 of age committing heinous crimes are beyond
correction or in other words cannot be rehabilitated but children committing crimes
which are less violent can be reformed.

It is of dire importance to understand these assumptions are baseless and redundant. A child
committing a heinous crime does not, at all times depends mostly on the circumstances under
which a negative influence had forced the juvenile to commit the crime. For example, the same
juvenile can be influenced to murder someone and also to commit robbery. Even though the
freedom of choice is present it has to be understood that the juvenile can be influenced to
commit both the crimes. Instead of reducing the age, the government has to try harder to reform

22
Id
23
Parliamentary Standing Committee Report 264, at p.36
24
Justice Verma Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law, Government of India, at p. 259.

11
the juvenile who commits such offences and make sure he doesnt repeat it in the future.
Unfortunately the police now believes the Juveniles between ages 16-18 can be treated as adults
for all purposes which again proves the inability of the administration to implement this law in
the way it was intended.25

Psychologists have discovered that the social-economic part of the brain reacting to
punishments or rewards undergoes a lot of change during adolescence (includes children of
16-18) which impairs the ability of the Juvenile to take rational decisions.26 That is a child
before committing the crime, disregards the consequences of his actions. The adolescent child
is committing the said crime not because he thinks like an adult but because of his inability to
do so, which is why the adolescent child of all needs the reformative approach. The US court
also observed there is a considerable psychological difference between how children and adults
think, making children less culpable.27 The Supreme Court of India also observed that
exceptional cases are not in such proportion to change the philosophy of Juvenile Justice, and
reformative approach was upheld to be the right course of action. 28 In Sheela Barse v. Union
of India29 , the Supreme Court observed: Even where children are accused of offences, they
must not be kept in jails. It is no answer on the part of the State to say that it has not got enough
number of remand homes or observation homes or other places where children can be kept and
that is why they are lodged in jails. It is also no answer on the part of the State to urge that the
ward in the jail where the children are kept in separate from the ward in which the other
prisoners are detained. It is the atmosphere of the jail which has a highly injurious effect on the
mind of the child, estranging him from the society and breeding in him aversion bordering on
hatred against a system which keeps him in jail.

Another aspect of criticism can be the adverse impact that this Act will be having on the
economically backward groups. It is observed that 60 % of the Juvenile convicts are from
families earning less than 25,000 Rupees per annum and 20% of the Juvenile convicts are from
families earning 25,000-50,000 rupees. That, when accumulated reaches 80% of the Juvenile

25
See, Dr. Kumar Askand Pandey, Brain Science, Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015, RMNLU Law Journal 2015, pg 54
26
MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. (2006,
September), Less guilty by reason of adolescence (Issue Brief No. 3). Philadelphia.
27
Graham v. Florida, 176 L Ed 2d 825
28
Salil Bali vs. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705
29
AIR 1986 SC 1773

12
convicts30. When there is a clear division as to the type of Juvenile offenders with respect to
economic background the government is bound to take that into consideration. The Act
allowing Juveniles to be treated as adults will deny the 80 % of the offenders, the chance to
reform themselves and ultimately improve their socio-economic status.

30
Crimes in India 2000-10, National Crimes Record Bureau

13
 CONCLUSION
By virtue of the arguments made in this paper, it is clear that the amendment to the Juvenile
Justice Amendment Bill 2015 which reduced the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16
only in the case of heinous crimes is redundant. It has been proved that their age has nothing
to do with the type of crimes they do but only sociological causes. Therefore, the move taken
by the government in this regard was a hasty one, and must be reversed to comply with the
traditional philosophy of Juvenile Justice.

14