Young criminals breathe easy and can continue to terrorize the innocents as the highest court of the land said there is no need to reduce to juvenile age from 18 to 16. Dismissing a slew of petitions seeking to reduce the age of juvenile from 18 to 16 years and keeping minors involved in heinous crimes out of the arm of juvenile laws, Supreme Court observed that the December 16 crime in Delhi in which a minor is also an accused should be considered an aberration. Stating that interference in the Juvenile Justice Act is not necessary, a bench headed by chief justice Altamas Kabir dismissed a batch of PILs which were filed in the aftermath of the December 16 brutal gangrape and murder case in which a minor is also involved.
"We do not think that any interference is necessary with the provisions of the statute till such time as sufficient data is available to warrant any change in the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules," the court said adding "it would not be wise on our part to deviate from the provisions of the Act which represents the collective wisdom of Parliament". In the wake of the huge hue and cry over the alleged involvement of the minor in the December 16 case, a batch of PILs was filed in the apex court pleading that the Act should be amended and a minor, involved in heinous crimes, should not be protected under the law.
The plea in the apex court was opposed by various child activists, including former chairman of Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) Amod Kanth. On December 16, last year, a 23-year-old girl was brutally gangraped and assaulted in a moving bus allegedly by six persons, one of whom is a minor and is facing proceedings before a Juvenile Justice Board which is scheduled to pronounce its verdict on July 25.
The girl had succumbed to her injuries in a Singapore hospital on December 29.
One of the PILs filed in the apex court had sought examination of the constitutional validity of the provision defining juvenile in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which treats a person as a minor till he attains the age of 18 years. The petition had contended that sections 2(k), 10 and 17 of the Act which deal with the issue were irrational and ultra-vires of the Constitution. The petitions had also submitted that the Act needs amendment as it does not talk about the physical or mental maturity of a juvenile. Another petition had sought appointment of a criminal psychologist to determine through clinical and medical examination if the juvenile accused in a case would be a
threat to the society.
The court also noted that in recent years, there has been a spurt in criminal activities by adults but not so by juveniles. "The essence of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and re-integration of children in conflict with law into the mainstream society," it said. “It cannot be questioned that children are amongst the most vulnerable sections in any society. They represent almost one-third of the world’s population and unless they are provided with proper opportunities, the opportunity of making them grow into responsible citizens of tomorrow will slip out of the hands of the present generation," it said.
The court also observed that the December 16 gangrape-cum- murder case allegedly involving a minor accused is gruesome but such incident is an "aberration rather than rule" and that the number of crimes committed by juveniles is about two percent of the country’s crime rate and favoured the protection given to minors involved in crime in order to rehabilitate and re-integrate them into mainstream society. "There is little doubt that the incident, which occurred on the night of 16th December, 2012, was not only gruesome, but almost maniacal in its content, wherein one juvenile, whose role is yet to be established, was involved, but such an incident, in comparison to the vast number of crimes occurring in India, makes it an aberration rather than the Rule. "If what has come out from the reports of the Crimes Record Bureau, is true, then the number of crimes committed by juveniles comes to about two percent of the country’s crime rate," the bench said.
The bench said there is misunderstanding among the people who believe that a juvenile is allowed to go free after attaining the age of 18 years. It said that under present law even if a juvenile attains the age of 18 years within a period of one year, he would still have to undergo a sentence of three years, which could spill beyond the period of one year when he attained majority. During the hearing, the Centre had also pleaded before the court that December 16 incident should not be allowed to colour the decision taken to treat all persons below the age of 18 years as children.
