The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015 is currently pending in Rajya Sabha and was listed for passage in the current Winter session of Parliament. The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha after incorporating certain amendments, in May 2015. Here is all you need to know about the Bill and key issues associated with it. A PRS analysis of the statistics on incidence of crimes by children and conviction rates is available here.
| Table 1: Juveniles between 16-18 years apprehended under IPC | |||
| Crime |
2003 |
2013 |
|
| Burglary |
1,160 |
2,117 |
|
| Rape |
293 |
1,388 |
|
| Kidnapping/abduction |
156 |
933 |
|
| Robbery |
165 |
880 |
|
| Murder |
328 |
845 |
|
| Other offences |
11,839 |
19,641 |
|
| Total |
13,941 |
25,804 |
|
| Note: Other offences include cheating, rioting, etc. Sources: Juveniles in conflict with law, Crime in India 2013, National Crime Records Bureau; PRS. | |||
Who is a juvenile as recognised by law? In the Indian context, a juvenile or child is any person who is below the age of 18 years. However, the Indian Penal Code specifies that a child cannot be charged for any crime until he has attained seven years of age. Why is there a need for a new Bill when a juvenile justice law already exists? The government introduced the Juvenile Justice Bill in August 2014 in Lok Sabha and gave various reasons to justify the need for a new law. It said that the existing Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was facing implementation issues and procedural delays with regard to adoption, etc. Additionally, the government cited National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data to say that there has been an increase in crimes committed by juveniles, especially by those in the 16-18 years age group. NCRB data shows that the percentage of juvenile crimes, when seen in proportion to total crimes, has increased from 1% in 2003 to 1.2% in 2013. During the same period, 16-18 year olds accused of crimes as a percentage of all juveniles accused of crimes increased from 54% to 66%. However, the type of crimes committed by 16-18 year olds can be seen in table 1. What is the new Bill doing? Currently, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides the framework to deal with children who are in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection. The Bill seeks to replace the existing 2000 Act and lays down the procedures to deal with both categories of children. It highlights the two main bodies that will deal with these children, to be set up in each district: Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs). It provides details regarding adoption processes and penalties applicable under the law. The Bill provides for children between 16-18 years to be tried as adults for heinous crimes. The three types of offences defined by the Bill are: (i) a heinous offence is an offence that attracts a minimum penalty of seven years imprisonment under any existing law, (ii) a serious offence is one that gets imprisonment between three to seven years and, (iii) a petty offence is penalized with up to three years imprisonment. Currently, how is a juvenile in conflict with law treated? How is that set to change? Under the 2000 Act, any child in conflict with law, regardless of the type of offence committed, may spend a maximum of three years in institutional care (special home, etc.) The child cannot be given any penalty higher than three years, nor be tried as an adult and be sent to an adult jail. The proposed Bill treats all children under the age of 18 years in a similar way, except for one departure. It states that any 16-18 year old who commits a heinous offence may be tried as an adult. The JJB shall assess the child’s mental and physical capacity, ability to understand consequences of the offence, etc. On the basis of
this assessment, a Children’s Court will determine whether the child is fit to be tried as an adult. What did the Standing Committee examining the Bill observe? One of the reasons cited for the introduction of the Bill is a spike in juvenile crime, as depicted by NCRB data. The Standing Committee on Human Resource Development examining the Bill stated that NCRB data was misleading as it was based on FIRs and not actual convictions. It also observed that the Bill violates some constitutional provisions and said that the approach towards juvenile offenders should be reformative and rehabilitative. The Bill as introduced posed certain constitutional violations to Article 14, 20(1) and 21. These have been addressed by deletion of the relevant clause, at the time of passing the Bill in Lok Sabha. What does the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) say? What are the obligations on the signatory nations? The UNCRC was ratified by India in 1992 and the 2000 Act was consequently brought in to adhere to the standards set by the Convention. The proposed Bill maintains this aim and seeks to improve implementation and procedural delays experienced by the 2000 Act. The UNCRC states that signatory countries should treat every child under the age of 18 years in the same manner and not try them as adults. While the 2000 Act complies with this requirement, the Bill does not. However, many other countries who have also ratified the Convention try juveniles as adults, in case of certain crimes. These countries include the UK, France, Germany, etc. The United States is not a signatory to the UNCRC and also treats juveniles as adults in case of certain crimes. Under the Bill, what happens to a child who is found to be orphaned, abandoned or surrendered? The Bill addresses children in need of care and protection. When a child is found to be orphaned, abandoned or surrendered he is brought before a Child Welfare Committee within 24 hours. A social investigation report is conducted for the child, and the Committee decides to either send the child to a children’s home or any other facility it deems fit, or to declare the child to be free for adoption or foster care. The Bill outlines the eligibility criteria for prospective parents. It also details procedures for adoption, and introduces a provision for inter-country adoption, so that prospective parents living outside the country can adopt a child in India. Currently, the Guidelines Governing Adoption, 2015 under the 2000 Act, regulates adoptions. Model Foster Care Guidelines have also recently been released by the Ministry of Women and Child Development. What are the penalties for committing offences against children? Various penalties for committing offences against children are laid out in the Bill. These include penalties for giving a child an intoxicating substance, selling or buying the child, cruelty against a child, etc. Issue to consider: The penalty for giving a child an intoxicating or narcotic substance is an imprisonment of seven years and a fine of up to one lakh rupees. Comparatively, buying or selling a child will attract a penalty including imprisonment of five years and a fine of one lakh rupees. It remains to be seen if the Bill will be taken up for consideration in this session, and if its passage will address the issues surrounding children in conflict with the law.
The doctrine of separation of powers implies that each pillar of democracy – the executive, legislature and the judiciary – perform separate functions and act as separate entities. The executive is vested with the power to make policy decisions and implement laws. The legislature is empowered to issue enactments. The judiciary is responsible for adjudicating disputes. The doctrine is a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution[1] even though it is not specifically mentioned in its text. Thus, no law may be passed and no amendment may be made to the Constitution deviating from the doctrine. Different agencies impose checks and balances upon each other but may not transgress upon each other’s functions. Thus, the judiciary exercises judicial review over executive and legislative action, and the legislature reviews the functioning of the executive. There have been some cases where the courts have issued laws and policy related orders through their judgements. These include the Vishakha case where guidelines on sexual harassment were issued by the Supreme Court, the order of the Court directing the Centre to distribute food grains (2010) and the appointment of the Special Investigation Team to replace the High Level Committee established by the Centre for investigating black money deposits in Swiss Banks. In 1983 when Justice Bhagwati introduced public interest litigation in India, Justice Pathak in the same judgement warned against the “temptation of crossing into territory which properly pertains to the Legislature or to the Executive Government”[2]. Justice Katju in 2007 noted that, “Courts cannot create rights where none exist nor can they go on making orders which are incapable of enforcement or violative of other laws or settled legal principles. With a view to see that judicial activism does not become judicial adventurism the courts must act with caution and proper restraint. It needs to be remembered that courts cannot run the government. The judiciary should act only as an alarm bell; it should ensure that the executive has become alive to perform its duties.” [3] While there has been some discussion on the issue of activism by the judiciary, it must be noted that there are also instances of the legislature using its law making powers to reverse the outcome of some judgements. (M.J. Antony has referred to a few in his article in the Business Standard here.) We discuss below some recent instances of the legislature overturning judicial pronouncements by passing laws with retrospective effect. On September 7, 2011 the Parliament passed the Customs Amendment and Validation Bill, 2011 which retrospectively validates all duties imposed and actions taken by certain customs officials who were not authorized under the Customs Act to do the stated acts. Some of the duties imposed were in fact challenged before the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali in 2011[4]. The Supreme Court struck down the levy of duties since these were imposed by unauthorised officials. By passing the Customs Bill, 2011 the Parliament circumvented the judgement and amended the Act to authorize certain officials to levy duties retrospectively, even those that had been held to be illegal by the SC. Another instance of the legislature overriding the decision of the Supreme Court was seen in the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009 which was passed into an Act. The Supreme Court had ruled that the price at which the Centre shall buy sugar from the mill shall include the statutory minimum price (SMP) and an additional amount of profits that the mills share with farmers.[5] The Amendment allowed the Centre to pay a fair and remunerative price (FRP) instead of the SMP. It also did away with the requirement to pay the additional amount. The amendment applied to all transactions for purchase of sugar by the Centre since 1974. In effect, the amendment overruled the Court decision. The executive tried to sidestep the Apex Court decision through the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 2010. The Court had issued a writ to the Custodian of Enemy Property to return possession of certain properties to the legal heir of the owner. Subsequently the Executive issued an Ordinance under which all properties that were divested from the Custodian in favour of legal heirs by a Court order were reverted to him. The Ordinance lapsed and a Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The Bill is currently being examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs. These examples highlight some instances where the legislature has acted to reverse judicial pronouncements. The judiciary has also acted in several instances in the grey areas separating its role from that of the executive and the legislature. The doctrine of separation of powers is not codified in the Indian constitution. Indeed, it may be difficult to draw a strict line demarcating the separation. However, it may be necessary for each pillar of the State to evolve a healthy convention that respects the domain of the others.
[1] Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
[2] Bandhua Mukti Morcha AIR 1984 SC 802
[3] Aravali Golf Club vs. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 289
[4] Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali (2011) 3 SCC 537
[5] Mahalakshmi Mills vs. Union of India (2009) 16 SCC 569
