Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act

Explained: When a juvenile is tried as an adult, when not

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level : Not Much

Mains level : Juvenile Justice in India and issues associated with it

Background

  • In 2016, a 17-year-old was booked for the murder of his three-year-old neighbour in Mumbai.
  • The city Juvenile Justice Board as well as a children’s court directed that he be tried as an adult under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
  • Last week, the Bombay High Court set aside these orders and directed that the accused be tried as a minor, saying the Act is reformative and not retributive.

When is a Child tried as an Adult?

  • The Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 was amended in 2015 with a provision allowing for Children in Conflict with Law (CCL) to be tried as adults under certain circumstances.
  • The Act defines a child as someone who is under age 18.
  • For a CCL, age on the date of the offence is the basis for determining whether he or she was a child or an adult.
  • The amended Act distinguishes children in the age group 16-18 as a category which can be tried as adults if they are alleged to have committed a heinous offence — one that attracts a minimum punishment of seven years.
  • The Act does not, however, make it mandatory for all children in this age group to be tried as adults.

How?

  • Trial as an adult is not a default choice; a conscious, calibrated one; And for that, all the statutory criteria must be fulfilled, said Bombay High Court
  • As per Section 15 of the JJ Act, there are three criteria that the Juvenile Justice Board in the concerned district should consider while conducting a preliminary assessment to determine a child be tried as an adult.
  • The criteria are whether the child has the mental and physical capacity to commit such an offence; whether the child has the ability to understand its consequences; and the circumstances in which the offence was committed.
  • If the Board finds that the child can be tried as an adult, the case is transferred to a designated children’s court, which again decides whether the Board’s decision is correct.

Why was this distinction made?

  • The amendment was proposed by the Ministry of WCD in 2014 (effective from 2015).
  • This was in the backdrop of the gang-rape of a woman inside a bus in Delhi in 2012, leading to her death.
  • One of the offenders was a 17-year-old, which led to the Ministry proposing the amendment (although it could not have retrospectively applied to him).
  • The then Minister, Maneka Gandhi, cited an increase in cases of offenders in that age group; child rights activists objected to the amendment.
  • The J S Verma Committee constituted to recommend amendments also stated that it was not inclined to reduce the age of a juvenile from 18 to 16.

Why is the issue under debate?

  • The statute permits a child of 16 years and above to stand trial as an adult in case of heinous offence, it did not mean that all those children should be subjected to adult punishment.
  • Essentially, the trial in the regular court is offence-oriented; in the juvenile court, it is offender-oriented.
  • In other words, in the children’s court, societal safety and the child’s future are balanced.
  • For an adult offender, prison is the default opinion; for a juvenile it is the last resort.
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments