Juveniles at crossroads: Cops ignore confidentiality clause in JJ Act, deny reformed youths chance to rebuild life

Why is India failing its juveniles? National statistical data indicates that even juveniles who have been found to have reformed are not being given a fair chance to enter mainstream life. In Delhi, as in other parts of the country, several cases are being reported every month before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), in which boys between the ages of 18 and 20 years find their applications for jobs, passports or driving licences being turned down because of their past. It is only when the JJB makes an application before a law court asking for the details of their crime to be struck from the police records that this information is removed from the public domain. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act clearly states that juveniles are covered by a confidentiality clause whereby their identity is not disclosed and all their records are destroyed within six months  of the closure of their cases. The Act stipulates that no stigma is attached to a juvenile in conflict with law and a minor is extended a protective umbrella under this enactment. Revealing his identity at any stage of life defeats the purpose of the juvenile justice law. The confidentiality clause has worked in favour of the fifth accused in the Jyoti Singh case. The fifth accused was a 17-year old school drop out when the crime was perpetrated. While the other four rapists were sentenced to be hanged, this 17-year old who was the only breadwinner for his family comprising a sick father, two minor (then) sisters and a mother were dependent on his earnings to make ends meet. He was sentenced to a maximum of three years in a reformation home by the JJB. [caption id=“attachment_1654855” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Representational image. Reuters[/caption] This young adult today has a job and is working to mainstream his life and support his family. But unfortunately for many boys, the past continues to haunt them. Every time a boy applies for a job or a driving licence in order to restart his life, when his case comes up before the police, he is given a response in the negative. “It is mandatory for the police to destroy their records, but it fails to do so. Since most of these boys have not studied beyond Class 7 or 8, getting a job as an Ola or Uber driver is a good option for them, but they fail to get these jobs because whenever an inquiry is ordered at the police station the police end up disclosing their records,” said advocate Anant Asthana who has taken up several cases before the JJB. “In the private sector, once he fails to get a clean chit from the SHO, there is little possibility of him getting a job. Many of these boys are from broken homes, they have grown up in resettlement colonies and have little education to boot. But 90 percent of them reform and want to change their lives. It is imperative that they be given a chance,” said Asthana. Rachit Gupta, another advocate who works closely with juveniles cited the example of a 16-year old from the North East who was driving a van used by three adult men to rob an ATM. “He realised his mistake and joined an NGO that went on to provide him with support so he could do a hotel management course. The NGO also helped him get a job as a housekeeper and he now works in a hotel,” said Gupta, stressing that the boy is an exception. Legal intervention for those who have applied for jobs in government positions often see these boys being reinstated, but this is not the case in the private sector. Asthana added, “A young man, qualified enough to join the Delhi Police, received an appointment letter from them. But a subsequent departmental inquiry saw the concerned police station disclose the fact that he had once been charged for an offence of cheating. His appointment was cancelled. He took legal recourse and filed an application before the JJB that brought this matter to the notice of the Delhi High Court, which in turn, passed an order that his job be restored to him.” Similarly, there was another case in which Transport Department of Delhi denied a young man a motor vehicle licence on the grounds that police verification showed he had committed a crime. He also filed an application before the JJB pointing out that he was a juvenile when the crime was committed. When the JJB officials pointed this out to the transport authorities, he was granted a driving licence. But not everyone is so lucky. While Delhi has six JJBs that meet on a daily basis, that is not the case with most of the states. In large states like Bihar, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, the number of JJBs is smaller and they are known to meet twice a week. Gupta said, “Unlike Delhi where judicial officers are sympathetic, this is not the case outside the National Capital where juveniles are languishing in JJ homes and sometimes even in adult jails without recourse to justice.” He gave the example of Faridabad that has a large number of juveniles lodged in adult jails.

In 2015, the juvenile law was changed to allow children who were between the ages of 16 and 18 years to be tried as adults if they had committed a heinous crime, but such children remain a small minority. A large majority of juveniles are not aware of this law and therefore seldom take legal recourse. Lawyers believe courts need to spell this issue out with greater clarity.

Young men with a juvenile past often lie about their past. Asthana cited the example of a young adult while filing for a job application wrote “No” in the column in which he had to give details of any criminal cases against him. When the reality caught up with him in the post-appointment inquiry, it led to the termination of his services. His case was taken before the Delhi High Court which ruled that although the boy had committed the crime when he was 14 years old and was subsequently acquitted, he should have given correct answers in the application form especially since he was an adult at the time he had filled out the form. In yet another case that came up before the Delhi High Court, a young adult applying for a job had written in the negative about whether he had ever been in conflict with law. But again, the inquiry report revealed his misinformation and his services were also terminated. This young adult also took the matter to the Delhi High Court pointing out that a case had been registered against him when he was just eight years old. He told the court that he was from a rural area and belonged to the economically weaker and backward section of society, and had been implicated in a false case registered by the police in Haryana in 1994. The petitioner was tried by the juvenile court and acquitted, and he was reinstated in his job. In another well-publicised case, the Delhi High Court ordered the reinstatement of a constable who was removed from service in the Reserved Police Force by the Railway Board on the ground that he had not disclosed the pendency of a criminal case lodged against him when he was 12 years old. The court directed the authorities that he be reinstated insisting that such termination of service was contrary to the spirit of the JJ Act. Lawyers believe these different judgments muddy the picture. While one judgment says that if a person is adult at the time filling up the form, omission to disclose the details of any case will amount to dishonesty, in the other two cases this was not the case and they were reinstated in their jobs. But in none of these cases was the police admonished by the court for disclosing the identity of the juveniles. Lawyers and social activists regret that only a few such cases get highlighted. Gupta said, “There are thousands of young people who have lost out on career opportunities without being noticed by anyone.” And this is more so with juvenile crime showing an upward climb. The National Crime Records Bureau has shown that during the last five years, juvenile crime has increased by 30 percent. In 2013, 45,506 juveniles were arrested for different crimes but these numbers have only gone up. Most of these kids were illiterate or had attended only primary school and 50 percent of them came from poor families whose annual income was Rs 25,000 or below. All the more reason for them to be given the protection of the JJ Act.