Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Sections 2(k), 2(l) & 15(1)(g)

August 23rd, 2013

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Sections 2(k), 2(l) & 15(1)(g) — Juvenile — Retention of eighteen as the upper limit, Reasonability of — Petition with prayer to strike down the provisions of Section 2(k) and (l) of the Act, along with a prayer to bring the Act in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and to direct the Respondent No. 1 to take steps to make changes in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to bring it in line with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for administration of juvenile justice — Held, age of eighteen has been fixed on account of the understanding of experts in child psychology and behavioural patterns that till such an age the children in conflict with law could still be redeemed and restored to mainstream society, instead of becoming hardened criminals in future — This being the understanding of the Government behind the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the amendments effected thereto in 2006, together with the Rules framed thereunder in 2007, and the data available with regard to the commission of heinous offences by children, within the meaning of Sections 2(k) and 2(l) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, no 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 — Dismissed.

(Para 44 to 50)

HELD: The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is in tune with the provisions of the Constitution and the various Declarations and Conventions adopted by the world community represented by the United Nations. The basis of fixing of the age till when a person could be treated as a child at eighteen years in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was Article 1 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, as was brought to our notice during the hearing. Of course, it has been submitted by Dr. Kishor that the description in Article 1 of the Convention was a contradiction in terms. While generally treating eighteen to be the age till which a person could be treated to be a child, it also indicates that the same was variable where national laws recognize the age of majority earlier. In this regard, one of the other considerations which weighed with the legislation in fixing the age of understanding at eighteen years is on account of the scientific data that indicates that the brain continues to develop and the growth of a child continues till he reaches at least the age of eighteen years and that it is at that point of time that he can be held fully responsible for his actions. Along with physical growth, mental growth is equally important, in assessing the maturity of a person below the age of eighteen years. In this connection, reference may be made to the chart provided by Mr. Kanth, wherein the various laws relating to children generally recognize eighteen years to be the age for reckoning a person as a juvenile/child including criminal offences.

(Para 44)

In any event, in the absence of any proper data, it would not be wise on our part to deviate from the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which represent the collective wisdom of Parliament. It may not be out of place to mention that in the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, male children above the age of sixteen years were considered to be adults, whereas girl children were treated as adults on attaining the age of eighteen years. In the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, a conscious decision was taken by Parliament to raise the age of male juveniles/children to eighteen years.

(Para 45)

In recent years, there has been a spurt in criminal activities by adults, but not so by juveniles, as the materials produced before us show. The age limit which was raised from sixteen to eighteen years in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is a decision which was taken by the Government, which is strongly in favour of retaining Sections 2(k) and 2(l) in the manner in which it exists in the Statute Book.

(Para 46)

One misunderstanding of the law relating to the sentencing of juveniles, needs to be corrected. The general understanding of a sentence that can be awarded to a juvenile under Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, prior to its amendment in 2006, is that after attaining the age of eighteen years, a juvenile who is found guilty of a heinous offence is allowed to go free. Section 15(1)(g), as it stood before the amendment came into effect from 22nd August, 2006, reads as follows:

“15(1)(g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years: (i) in case of juvenile, over seventeen years but less than eighteen years of age, for a period of not less than two years;

(ii) in case of any other juvenile for the period until he ceases to be a juvenile:

Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit.”

It was generally perceived that a juvenile was free to go, even if he had committed a heinous crime, when he ceased to be a juvenile.

The said understanding needs to be clarified on account of the amendment which came into force with effect from 22.8.2006, as a result whereof Section 15(1)(g) now reads as follows:

“Make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years:

Provided that the Board may if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit.”

The aforesaid amendment now makes it clear that even if a juvenile attains the age of eighteen 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.

(Para 47)

There is yet another consideration which appears to have weighed with the worldwide community, including India, to retain eighteen as the upper limit to which persons could be treated as children. In the Bill brought in Parliament for enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000, it has been indicated that the same was being introduced to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication of certain matters relating to and disposition of delinquent juveniles. The essence of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder in 2007, is restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and re-integration of children in conflict with law into mainstream society. The age of eighteen has been fixed on account of the understanding of experts in child psychology and behavioural patterns that till such an age the children in conflict with law could still be redeemed and restored to mainstream society, instead of becoming hardened criminals in future. There are, of course, exceptions where a child in the age group of sixteen to eighteen may have developed criminal propensities, which would make it virtually impossible for him/her to be re-integrated into mainstream society, but such examples are not of such proportions as to warrant any change in thinking, since it is probably better to try and re- integrate children with criminal propensities into mainstream society, rather than to allow them to develop into hardened criminals, which does not augur well for the future.

(Para 48)

Salil Bali v. Union of India[Bench Strength 3], Writ Petition (C) No. 10/2013(17/07/2013), 2013(9) SCALE 140 [Altamas Kabir, J.: Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.: J. Chelameswar, J.]

Entry Filed under: Legal Updates