Is Juvenile Justice Act Sufficient for Juvenile Rapists?

  As developing country like India where half of the population is under twenties needs more care

and protection from all kinds of violence. In India many of the people lives in rural area where

half population lives below the poverty line and because of lack of educational facilities they are

left behind overall development in personality. As we all know youths are the future of the

nation we must protect them falling into wrong direction guiding them in right direction and

rehabilitating them in serious offence like rape. There was a time when even small children were

severally punished if they committed some crime but as psychologist proceeded to drown the

attention of the civilized world the causes of juvenile delinquencies the tradition of punishing

children lost favor to be replaced by efforts at improving and rehabilitating them. 

Cases like Kathua gang rape murder case accused Shubham Sangra was under 16 year of age and

Supreme Court directed him to face trial as an adult. Supreme Court observed epigenetic clocked

technique for age determination and whether Juvenile Justice Act 2015 has sub served its object

of goal of reformation of juvenile. Brutal and heinous crimes by juveniles escaping adult

punishment embolden them. Juveniles willingly engaged by adult criminals in crimes of passion

terrorism, drug smuggling, robbery and rape are under promise of juvenile justice. Supreme

Court judgment requires urgent introspection by parliament before army of juvenile recruited.

Juvenile Justice Act 1986 prescribed age a juvenile at 16 years. India ratified united nation

convention on rights of the child in 1992. The United Nation Convention defines “a child as a

human being below the age of 18 years unless the law applicable to the child, majority attained

earlier”. To adapt the UN Convention Juvenile Justice Act 1986 was amended in 2000 to

prescribe 18 years as age of a child or a juvenile. Consequently “a juvenile in conflict with law”

meant a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and who has not completed age of

18 on date of commission of an offence.

In 2012, Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case brought public outcry on streets agitating for a stringent

punishment for juvenile. Government in its wisdom amended the Juvenile Justice Act which was

recharished as Juvenile Justice Act 2015. It empowered juvenile justice board to decide whether

a juvenile aged between 16 to 18 years ought to be treated in a children’s court for heinous

offences.

With advent of technology glamour of crime and susceptibility of ill virtues in the society the

law is needed to be reformed. If we seek the solution to reform juvenile justice act it is

mandatory to ascertain mental and physical capacity of juvenile, his ability to understand

consequences of offences and circumstances in which he committed a heinous offence, before he

is tried by a court as an adult. Courts cannot legislate. Parliament must come to rescue age of the

juvenile has to be revisited. Kathua case is an eye opener. We do not need another precedent.

Only if we amend juvenile justice act 2015 to change age of juvenile committing a heinous

offence can the perspective change. Alarm was caused by fact that law was ill-equipped to

handle juvenile offence. Hence, instead of lowering the age to 16 years, changes ensued and

juvenile offenders between 16 to 18 years were put in a different class. Every individual

possesses different personality different background and upbringings. Law must look them as an

individual and treat them according to their individuality.