The government has informed the Supreme Court that it is against lowering the juvenility age from 18, following a spike in crimes being committed by minors, but called for enhanced punishment for a minor according to the gravity of the crime, and not merely on his or her age. The Centre pointed out that lodging juveniles with adult criminals in jail will render them hardened criminals and is more likely to cause harm to the society than help the culprits, even as it admitted that crimes committed by juveniles in the 16-18 age bracket have "slightly gone up".
Defending the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the ministry of women and child development said the law, defining a juvenile as less than 18 years and hence according immunity from ordinary rigours of criminal trials, is in conformity with international standards and ensures their reformation and rehabilitation. Additional solicitor general Sidharth Luthra told a bench led by chief justice Altamas Kabir that reduction in the age of juvenility would entail multiple legal problems, besides affecting a large number of juveniles who get into petty offences due to poverty and other such handicaps.
The Centre's response has come in reply to a bunch of petitions that have challenged provisions of the juvenile law and demanded lowering the age of juvenility so as to ensure those involved in heinous offences do not get away under the blanket immunity of 18 years even though such protection impinged upon the fundamental rights of life and safety of other citizens.
These petitions express agitation by the possibility of the juvenile accused in the gangrape of the 23-year-old woman on a bus in Delhi getting off lightly because he was a few months shy of 18 years on December 16, when the crime was committed. He is believed to have been the most brutal of the six who assaulted the victim, who died in a Singapore hospital on December 29. The Juvenile Justice Board, which has concluded its inquiry against this juvenile, is likely to pronounce its verdict on July 11. On Monday, ASG said although this incident was "unfortunate", petitioners must also prove that fixation of age was arbitrary and beyond the constitutional provisions if they wanted quashing of concerned provisions. Luthra also said Justice J S Verma Committee, set up to recommend amendments in the criminal law after the gangrape incident, had also not favoured reduction in age of juveniles. Citing the National Crime Records Bureau data, ASG said juvenile offenders constituted only 1-2 per cent of the total offenders in the last 10 years and that only 2.9 per cent of heinous crimes were committed by them in 2011.
"As the crimes are increasing in general in society, number of crimes by juveniles between 16-18 years of age has also slightly gone up," stated the reply, adding the percentage of juvenile crimes to total crimes has increased from 0.9 per cent to 1.1 per cent between 2001 and 2011. The ministry also argued that although progression in fields of education, technology etc have made children much better informed in present times, "the advancements have contributed to adverse effects on the minds of children below 18 years" and so they needed extra protection. The SC will resume hearing the matter on Tuesday.
