 | « Back to article | Print this article |
A parliamentary committee on Wednesday rejected the government's proposal to try as adults juveniles between 16 and 18 years involved in heinous cases such as rape, saying the move is "in conflict with law" and should be "reviewed".
Giving its observation on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on HRD said children below 18 years are amenable and should be treated in the same manner and "differential treatment" for children above 16 years of age "should not arise".
The report of the committee comprising J P Nadda and Satyanarayan Jatiya was submitted in Parliament.
The comprehensive bill to tackle increasing crimes committed by youngsters aged between 16-18 years like the Delhi gangrape case and to ensure proper care and protection of needy children was introduced in Lok Sabha last August.
Increasing cases of crimes committed by children aged 16-18 years in recent years makes it evident that the current provisions and system under the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 "are ill equipped to tackle child offenders in this age group", the statement of objects and reasons of the bill said.
Referring to the views expressed by the stakeholders about a clause of trying an offender apprehended after the age of 21, the committee said that it was in full agreement with them that the provision was "discriminatory" and all children below 18 years should be treated as children.
"The proposed legislation is meant for children alleged and found to be in conflict with law. And the definition of both the term 'child' and 'child in conflict with law' means a person who has not completed 18 years of age.
"Accordingly the question of envisaging a differential treatment for children above 16 years of age should not arise. Such a move would lead to contravention of international law and also the stated purpose of the bill," the committee said.
"The committee accordingly recommends that the entire process needs a relook and review," it underlined.
The committee is of the view that all children below 18 are "amenable and should be treated in the same manner because of the fact that there involvement in offending acts was primarily due to either environmental factors or their unique development features such as risk taking nature, less future orientation, adventurism etc or both".
Specifically referring to Clause 19(3) which seeks further trial of a child as an adult, the committee said it needs to be "reviewed".
The clause states that after preliminary enquiry, if the Juvenile Justice Board comes to the conclusion that there is a need for further trial of the child as an adult, then it may order transfer of the trial of the case to the children's court having jurisdiction to try such offences.
The committee observed that since these courts are essentially sessions courts given additional task of ensuring speedy trials of offences against children, therefore by "all interpretations, they were court for adults".
"There is no doubt that this sub-clause diminishes the distinction between child victims and children in conflict with law by entitling the courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012...," it said.
It also recommended that all relevant clauses dealing with "children's courts and differential treatment of children between 16-18 years needs to be reviewed," he emphatically stated.
It said differential treatment of children above 16 years and below 18 years to be tried as an adult under the criminal justice system was also in complete contravention to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It was also in contravention to the stated purpose of the bill of adopting a child friendly approach in adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children.
"The very presumption that persons between 16-18 years were competent to stand trial just as adults was also not free from very genuine doubts, it observed.
The committee shot down a clause that binds the board to conduct preliminary enquiry about mental and physical capacity within one month in respect of heinous offences committed by children above 16 years, saying it was impossible to conduct such a complex enquiry within that period.