Why it's time Parliament had a debate on the pending Juvenile Justice Bill

While laws laying down a separate criminal justice system for minors have been around for more than a century, they have now, perhaps for the first time, become the subject of fierce public debate. Much of the discourse on the issue, including this _Firstpost_ article , has centered on one case: the December 2012 gangrape of Jyoti Singh Pandey in Delhi. But what is much more worrying is the fact that the union government too, while pushing for a new Juvenile Justice Bill, appears to be singularly focused on this one case, as evidenced by Maneka Gandhi's recent statements . Three years after the gruesome crime took place, it would be useful to recall the rationale of Justice Verma commission which was formed in its wake. Justice JS Verma, while explaining why the commission did not seek lowering the age at which a person is considered a juvenile, had pointed out that ‘hard cases make for bad laws’, and that laws for general application cannot be based on one case. [caption id=“attachment_2550894” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  The juvenile in the Delhi gangrape case being taken to court (file photo). AFP[/caption] Indeed, a look at the bigger picture brings much of the outcry about a ‘rise’ in juvenile crimes into perspective. The Firstpost article above states that arrests of juveniles between 16 and 18 years have ’escalated’ 60 percent from 2003 to 2013. But when we account for the fact that other crimes and the overall population also increased in the same period, we see that the share of juvenile crime out of the total crime under the IPC has remained between 1 per cent and 1.2 per cent — hardly a figure which could be described as an escalation. Moreover, the percentage of rape cases out of these cases is a mere 5.4 percent. While sex crimes have been at the centre of the debate on juvenile justice, the proposed bill which seeks to reduce the age of a juvenile has a very broad definition of a ‘heinous’ offence. This definition would have a much wider ambit than the above-mentioned 5.4 percent, as it includes all offences for which the punishment is more than seven years’ imprisonment. This could include robbery and fraud, crimes which may be committed due to economic hardship. If the bill becomes law, such minors could also be sent to jail. Let us set aside for a moment the argument about the objective of the criminal justice system being reformation rather than retribution. Examples from other countries, including the US, which we seek to emulate, point to the fact that harsher punitive measures don’t necessarily mean lesser crime. A UNICEF report points out that transferring minors to adult courts in the US led to increased rates of recidivism (re-offending). It could also be relevant to point out that the US is one of only two countries which have not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), whereas India has done so. There are several other problematic aspects in the Juvenile Justice Bill, which is now pending for consideration in the Rajya Sabha. For example, there is the point about what would happen if, as in the December 2012 gangrape case, there are both adults and juveniles who are accused. Will there be two separate chargesheets, trials, appeals and so on? If yes, can the same judge who pronounced a verdict for the adult accused decide on the culpability of the juvenile? What happens in cases where two minors elope and the parents, rather than the girl herself, file an FIR alleging rape? Do we want such teenagers to end up in jails? These are questions for which the proposed bill has few answers.