The amended Juvenile Justice Bill, which was passed in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday and now awaits the President’s assent to become law, is the consequence of a buildup of tremendous emotional pressure in the country days after the juvenile involved in the Nirbhaya rape and murder case walked free, having served his three-year mandatory sentence in a correction home. After the change, a 16-year old accused of a “heinous” crime can be tried under the law applicable to adults. The earlier threshold was 18 years.
The BJP government had passed the bill in the Lok Sabha earlier but was finding the going tough in the Upper House, with the Congress and several other parties wishing greater debate as the issues involving punishment to children were complex, and wanting the bill to be sent to a select committee for in-depth consideration.
Eventually, the Congress dropped its insistence and agreed to pass the measure through a voice vote. The buildup of pressure in the country became inordinately high with Nirbhaya’s distraught parents participating in protest demonstrations to seek justice for their child, and to demand a more stringent law that would act as deterrent to future juveniles committing heinous crimes like rape or murder.
The new law cannot apply retrospectively, and the juvenile criminal who walked free just days ago after serving his three years cannot be brought within its ambit. So, any reference to that case only has academic value. As for the deterrence factor, merely having so-called strong laws is no help. What’s needed is the swift application of law and serving of sentence so that a future criminal is forced to think twice before embarking on a crime. This, of course, applies across the board and not only to juvenile criminals.
Many Western countries have earmarked areas of criminal offences where a juvenile can be tried under the same law as adults. In this country, the bill just passed is the first attempt to change the definition for children (juveniles being children in their adolescence) for the purpose of dealing with heinous crimes. The measure was pushed through without a thorough-going debate, and was the consequence of an intense emotional buildup. That should not be the basis of making laws.
Matters involved are indeed exceedingly complex. Remember, Ajmal Kasab, the lone 26/11 Mumbai attacker to be taken alive, also claimed to be a juvenile but was sent to the gallows under the same law as an adult after the court determined he was an adult. Is changing the definition okay for terrorism and for foreign nationals, but not in other cases That cannot be a rational argument. Perhaps the new law should be applied only through designated courts with strong representation of experts to assist the court, and under stringent safeguards.
