Juvenile Justice System of India- Jurisdiction of Courts and beyond

By Jalaj Tokas

Published On: February 13, 2022 at 15:29 IST

Introduction

Isaac Asimov once remarked, “Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.”

Children are believed to form the cornerstone of every progressive society and are regarded as the prospective developers of the modern world. The Indian Constitution and the Indian Justice System envision a healthy society wherein children are free from exploitation and abuse.

However, some youngsters not only challenge the existing law, but also breach it, and therefore find themselves enmeshed in its web. Today’s crimes committed by minors, or juveniles, are not only uncontrolled, but also reflect a particularly harsh mindset among these young offenders. More importantly, juvenile delinquency is a serious problem for human interest since it is not only restricted to our country but also crosses national borders.

As such, children are the most valuable asset of any country, therefore every effort should be made to address the problem of juvenile delinquency that has arisen as a result of modernization and urbanization.

With reference to the overall development of children, the Juvenile Justice System is the most advanced and enlightened system identified by the world populace. However, the Indian Juvenile Justice System has been at critical crossroads throughout its history. There is tremendous concern that the system has veered from its purpose of reformation and rehabilitation, and has failed miserably in its goal of limiting delinquency. This has time and again sparked a vociferous drive for large-scale policy reforms among the society and the intellectuals.

In actuality, there has always been a conflict between social welfare and social control—that is, concentrating on the child’s best interests or emphasizing on punishment, incapacitation, and safeguarding society from various misdeeds. This tension has fluctuated with time and differed substantially from one jurisdiction to the next, as it still exists now.

The Enigma

In the wake of the country’s urbanization and industrialization, the subject of juvenile delinquency is inexorably raising its ugly head. The framework and functioning of our society have been transformed due to different scientific and technical breakthroughs during the last century, with attendant disorder and maladjustment. New modes of living have emerged as a result of the expansion of cities and diversified populations, increased mobility and fluidity, vocational and cultural diversity, and overcrowding situations.

These intensifying environments have had an extraordinary impact on youngsters. Quick changes in socio-economic life, unprecedented focus on materialistic culture, rapid growth of social mobility, and the disintegration of conventional social control mechanisms are all factors contributing to the rise of adolescent delinquency in India.

Most occurrences of social deviance among children are preceded by different stages of abandonment, poverty, abuse, truancy, vagrancy, trauma, or oppression. This element, however, does not prove that poverty is a problem in and of itself. Children from impoverished families do not always commit crimes, and children from wealthy families are not always law-abiding.

However, poverty does deprive a substantial chunk of the young population of an equal distribution of socio-economic opportunities that are essential for their holistic development. They remain at the risk of social maladjustment and ultimate indoctrination into criminogenic culture. As a result, it is critical to devise an efficient system to prevent and regulate juvenile delinquency in order to address the issues that they face.

What is Juvenile Justice?

Juvenile Justice is a domain of Criminal law which dilutes criminal liability on the premise that a juvenile is incapable of possessing a malevolent will. The notion of juvenile justice was derived from the notion that the issues of juvenile delinquency are not amenable to settlement within the parameters of the conventional methods of criminal law.

In simple words, the Juvenile Justice System is a branch of criminal law that dispenses justice in cases involving minors. This is a system for young people who are not mature enough to be held accountable for their criminal activities.

Most legal systems prevalent around the globe recognize that children and young people are not the same as adults and should not be held responsible for their acts in the same way that adults are. However, the most effective manner to deal with juvenile offenders is still debatable, and there is great skepticism over the most defensible legal reaction.

The etymological meaning of juvenile is a young person who retains the qualities and nature of a child. A juvenile is anyone under the age of eighteen. Children in conflict with the law and children in need of care and protection are the two categories addressed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015.

While, delinquency refers to a failure to follow social standards or a failure to perform a task, as well as any crime or wrongdoing. Delinquency refers to a failure to follow social standards or a failure to perform a task, as well as any crime or wrongdoing.

Additionally, care for justice, fairness, and equity, as well as a concern for peace and real regard for individuals, are all synonyms for the phrase “justice.” It is a moral rightness principle used in quest for fair treatment against unjust conduct. It is a moral rightness principle used in quest for fair treatment against unjust conduct.

JJS’ principal goal is to protect children by using proper therapy and creating an atmosphere in which they may develop a healthy human personality. JJS is a socio-legal measure that aims to establish a conducive environment for delinquent adolescents to be treated.

Among its objective is an attempt to reform delinquents and provide care for children who are not safeguarded. Ultimately, a youngster should be rehabilitated and returned to the family as soon as possible.

History

During colonial rule, India’s juvenile justice system emerged as a direct result of western concepts and advancements in the fields of prison reform and juvenile justice. Therefore, analyzing the current situation of India’s Juvenile Justice System (JJS) necessitates a glance back in its history.

The Apprentice Act of 1850 was the first piece of juvenile law, requiring that youths aged 10 to 18 years who had been convicted by a court be given vocational training that would aid in their reformation and rehabilitation. The Reformatory Schools Act of 1897 succeeded it.
The Indian Jail Committee (1919-1920) emphasised the importance of fair trials and care for juvenile offenders.
The Children Act was enacted in Madras in 1920 as a result of its suggestions. Bengal and Bombay Acts were passed in 1922 and 1924, separately.
Between 1948 and 1959, the three prototype acts (the Bombay, Bengal, and Madras Acts) were heavily revised.
Subsequently, the Children Act of 1960 was enacted at the central level to address the requirements of the Union Territories.
The Children (Amendment) Act was introduced in 1978 to address several fundamental flaws in the above-mentioned Act.
Even though the necessity for a uniform juvenile justice legislation for the entire country had been stated in several places, including the Parliament, yet it could not be adopted since the subject matter of such legislation lay under the State List as enshrined under the Indian Constitution.
To drive the country’s juvenile justice system in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules, 1985), the Parliament exercised its power under Article 253 of the Constitution, read with Entry 14 of the Union List, to make laws that apply to the entire country in order to meet international obligations.

The Supreme Court expressed its concern for an unified legislation on this matter in Sheela Barse Vs Union of India,^[1] and made suggestions.

The Juvenile Justice Bill, 1986 was introduced soon after. Its objectives and scope were so apparent that an examination of the current Children Acts would reveal that much more attention was necessary for children who were found in conditions of social ill-treatment, poverty, or neglect.

The adult judicial system was deemed ineffective when it came to dealing with minors. It was suggested that a unified juvenile justice system be implemented, which could give suitable provisions in light of the country’s changing social, cultural, and economic circumstances.

The provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 superseded previous laws on the issue, such as the Children Act of 1960 and other state legislation.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was enacted in response to India’s 1992 ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, and the changing social attitude toward child criminality reflected in Supreme Court decisions such as Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra,^[2] Ramdeo Chauhan Vs State of Assam^[3] and Arnit Das Vs State of Bihar.^[4]

Despite the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986, there still remained loopholes and flaws, and the Act of 1986, as predicted, could not stand the test of time and had to be replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000.

The age of both males and females was made uniform under this Act. This Act established a framework for the protection, treatment, and rehabilitation of children in the juvenile justice system, as well as a unique approach to the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency.

Since there still remained much ambiguity in areas where the new Act was non-expressive in dealing with certain issues, most notably determining the age of a juvenile offender, the landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by a Constitutional Bench in Partap Singh Vs State of Jharkhand,^[5] addressed this issue in detail and held that the reckoning period for the examination of the juvenile’s age is the date of the offence and not the date of his trial. In view of this ruling, the legislation governing this problem was modified.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act of 2006 instilled confidence in adolescents who were above 16 years old at the time of the alleged offence while the old Act, the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986, was still in effect. The age was raised to 18 years from 16 years pending trial when the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000 was passed.

As a result, this inconsistency was corrected by inserting a specific explanation in Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act of 2006. However, juveniles took advantage of this provision of the legislation, and the public witnessed horrible acts committed by minors all throughout the country.

In 2015, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act replaced the Juvenile Act of 2000. After considerable debate and outcry, the Parliament enacted this bill. It made several adjustments to then prevailing legislation. Under this statute, teenagers aged 16 to 18 who are involved in severe crimes are to be treated as adults, making the juvenile justice system more flexible and adaptable to changing societal situations.

The Act also establishes a defined definition of orphaned, abandoned, and surrendered children as well as a mechanism for their care. The Act also grants the Juvenile Justice Board and the Child Welfare Committee extra authority and responsibilities.

Following the Juvenile Act of 2015, crucial Acts, Policies, and organizations for the welfare of children emerged, including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), Child Labor (Protection and Regulation) Act, the POCSO Amendment Act 2019, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), National Child Labor Scheme, and the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act, 2021 was recently enacted by the Parliament in order to strengthen the provision of child protection and adoption.

Jurisdiction of Courts

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973

Section 27 clearly states that if a Juvenile (any individual who attends or is brought before the Court is under the age of sixteen years), he or she may be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any specifically empowered Court.

The part also takes into account the age and mentality of the juvenile offender, as well as restorative justice, by including the following:

Treatment,
training, and
rehabilitation for juvenile criminals.

Juvenile offences are divided into three categories under the 2015 Act; namely-

Heinous/egregious offences (those punishable by a minimum of seven years in jail under the IPC or any other legislation)
serious/grave offences (Serious offences are those that carry a sentence of three to seven years in jail. Serious offences will also include those for which the maximum penalty is more than seven years in jail and the minimum penalty is not specified or is less than seven years), and
petty/minor offences (below three years behind the bars).

The Juvenile Justice Board is assigned the task to investigate a child who has been charged with a severe crime. Serious offences are those that carry a sentence of three to seven years in jail. Serious offences will also include offences for which the maximum penalty is more than seven years in jail and the minimum penalty is not specified or is less than seven years.

The recently amended Act stipulates those crimes committed against children that carry a sentence of more than seven years in prison shall be prosecuted in the Children’s Court (equivalent to a Sessions Court).

Other offences (with a maximum sentence of less than seven years in jail) are to be heard by a Judicial Magistrate. All offences under the Act will be prosecuted at the Children’s Court, according to the Bill.

To guarantee proper execution of the Act, the Supreme Court asked the Chief Justice of each High Court to register cases on its own initiative in 2018.^[6]

The Supreme Court proposed in 2017 that Juvenile Justice Committees be established in each district and comprised of High Court judges who have a constitutional commitment to defend children’s fundamental rights.^[7]

Every district is instructed by the 2015 Act to establish one or more Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs).

While deciding a case the case of a child in dispute with the law, the special court shall abide by the doctrine of parens patriae.

Juvenile Justice Board

Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, juveniles accused of or imprisoned for a crime are brought before the JJB (amended in 2006). Children are not to be hauled before an ordinary criminal court under this legislation or the requirements of the Criminal Code Procedure.
The JJB is made up of a first-class judicial magistrate and two social workers, at least one of whom should be a woman. JJBs are supposed to conclude cases in four months. The JJB can usually release the youngster on bond in most cases. The JJB is a welcoming environment for children that should not be scary or overwhelming to them.

Child Welfare Committee

The State Governments have to establish at least one Child Welfare Committee to exercise the power and authority and release the obligations bestowed on such Committees by comparing children in need of care and security under this act, and ensures that training and sensitization of all individuals on the board of trustees takes place within two months of notification.
The Committee shall function as a bench, with the powers conferred on a Metropolitan Magistrate or, in most cases, a judicial Magistrate of First Class by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
The District Magistrate shall be the Child Welfare Committee’s complaints redressal expert, and anybody affiliated with the youngster may file an appeal with the District Magistrate, who will review and pass appropriate requests.
The Committee will be able to dismiss cases for the consideration, protection, rehabilitation, progress, and recovery of children in need of care and insurance, as well as to meet their basic requirements and ensure their safety.
Any child in need of care and security must be brought before the committee by one of the following people: a cop, a special juvenile police unit, an assigned child welfare police officer, a district child protection unit official, or a controller appointed by any current work legislation.
Where a committee has been formed for an area, that Committee will have the authority to manage all procedures under this Act related to children in need of care and security, despite anything contained in any other law until further notice in power, however brief as in any case explicitly given right now.

The Desiderata of Juvenile Justice System

A unique juvenile justice system was developed with the purpose of diverting young offenders from the damaging consequences of criminal courts and supporting rehabilitation based on the requirements of the particular juvenile. In some aspects, this system was to vary from adult or criminal court.

The fundamental purpose of the Indian juvenile justice system is to ensure that minors are not tried in regular courts and that laws for juveniles are written in such a manner that they are corrected in every way possible. Instead of penalizing children, the juvenile justice system focuses on their education. A child’s trial is based on non-punitive therapy in social control agencies including observation homes, special homes, and special schools.
The ultimate goal of any juvenile legislation is not to punish a child, but to protect him from the perils of the criminal justice system. Another important objective of juvenile law is to reform and rehabilitate juveniles so that they can grow into crime-free adults.
Furthermore, to function as a deterrence to habitual youthful offenders through punitive measures. The overarching function of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate and offer young offenders a second opportunity.
It aims to put the emphasis on the child or adolescent as a person in need of help, rather than the behavior that brought him or her before the court. The hearings were casual, and the juvenile court judge was given a lot of leeway.
Procedural safeguards accessible to adults, such as the right to an attorney, the right to know the allegations levelled against one, the right to a fair jury trial, and the opportunity to face one’s accuser, were deemed superfluous because the judge was to act in the best interests of the child.
Juvenile court hearings were closed to the general public, and juvenile records were kept secret in order to protect the child’s or adolescent’s ability to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. The terminology used in juvenile court emphasized these distinctions. Juveniles are charged with delinquencies rather than crimes; they are adjudicated delinquent rather than proven guilty; and they are not sent to jail but to a training school or reformatory.

Juveniles just like other children are our future, and it is vital that we preserve our younger generations from going astray.

Criticism

The expansion of the idea of juvenile delinquency has been met with backlash, arguing that it is neither necessary nor desirable to engage police and courts in private situations that may be handled effectively by family members.

All nations, be it established or developing, want their youth to avoid engaging in criminal, anti-social, or terrorist actions, and as a result, these countries are continuously defining and redefining their local laws in order to improve the future of juveniles.

It is also argued that changes in the legislation do not always lead to alterations in practice. Notably, juvenile delinquency laws are ineffective in ascertaining the age of the juvenile at the time of the offence.

Conclusion

The Juvenile Justice System is guided by the principles of social welfare and the protection of children’s rights. The JJS is primarily concerned with reformation and rehabilitation. It is to provide possibilities for the child’s personality development. And besides, the objective is to move on with the creation of an egalitarian society.

However, based on previous experience, we must close the gap between theory and practice. We must create a robust infrastructure and an efficient Juvenile Justice Administration as part of this process.

I do believe it is critical for us as a civilization to realize that most of the youngsters embroiled in juvenile justice systems have simply lacked the necessary mentors and support due to circumstances beyond their control.

The principal objective of today’s juvenile justice system still remains rehabilitation, and it differs from the criminal justice system in significant ways.

As a result, it is believed that a greater participation of informal systems and community-based welfare organizations in the protection, safeguarding, therapy, rehabilitation, and reintegration of juveniles is always necessary.

Edited by: Ankita Singh, Associate Editor, Law Insider

References

YOUTH IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: AN OVERVIEW

Juvenility Determines Juvenile Justice : A Comparative Analysis – India And USA

History of Juvenile Justice System in India

Justice System and the Juvenile

Scope and Purposes of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction

Judicial waiver system and it’s failure in juvenile delinquency laws in India

The Juvenile Justice System