The Failures of Juvenile Offender Reformation System in India

THE FAILURES OF JUVENILE OFFENDER REFORMATION SYSTEM IN INDIA

Alisha Syali, 2nd Year, B.A.LLB(Hons.) from Amity Law School, Delhi

Editorial Note: This blog post seeks to identify the problems which have arisen in the operations of the juvenile justice system in India and attempts to recommend possible solutions which can remedy the cracks evident in the system. The author proposes that the system should be oriented towards reformation of juveniles as a means to reduce juvenile delinquency rates.

Post the 2012 Nirbhaya incident in New Delhi, there rose an outcry across the nation since one of the accused in the heinous crime was a juvenile, just months short of adulthood, and was subsequently released after spending 3 years in a juvenile home. There was a unified demand across the country that the law pertaining to juvenile justice should be more stringent.

Statistics related to juvenile crimes suggest that it is time for the failures of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000 are analysed and rectified. As per the statistics provided by the National Crime Records Bureau, the percentage of crimes committed by juveniles in the period 2003-2013 increased from 1.0% to 1.2% of the total crimes, with particular increase witnessed in the age group of 16-18 years. Further, the share in total arrests of juveniles aged between 16-18 years increased from 56.4% in 2003 to 66.6% in 2013 and the total number of children accused of crimes rose from 24,709 in 2003 to 38,765 in 2013.

The law pertaining to juvenile justice ostensibly needed to be amended in a manner that accounted for the existing problems with the framework. However, the resultant amendments appeared to be in the nature of crowd pleasing endeavours, aimed at cooling down the nationwide outburst which posed a potential threat to the ruling polity. Nevertheless, the amendment provided some hope to the common masses involved in the larger  movement for  women’s security, who were hitherto aggrieved about  the increasing numbers of juvenile offendors who were conveniently getting away from the wrath of the law by virtue of being juveniles.

This was because the amendment has allowed  juveniles aged between  16-18 years to be tried for their heinous offences as  adults, provided it is permitted by the ‘Juvenile Justice Board’.  However, shortcomings of the amendment have been recognised including greater focus on retribution as opposed to reformation and addressing of the circumstances which lead to such acts. An analysis of  the NCRB data for the year 2016, i.e. the year in which the amendment was implemented,  portrays the increase in juvenile crimes coming under IPC and other local laws in various states from 33,433 in 2015 to 35,849 in 2016- an increase of 7.2% in the brief period.

These statistics highlight that the deterrence intended by permitting the trial of juveniles aged 16 years as adults, on approval of the Juvenile Justice Board, has not materialized yet so as to curb the menace of juvenile crimes.  It is argued therefore that alternately, attempts should be made to address the root causes of juvenile crimes, for instance the socio-economic circumstances which shape the mindset of these children, than merely making punishments harsher.

The question which arises here is whether the juveniles are really at fault? Many argue that it is the failure of the State to provide these children with basic facilities that would enable  them to lead a good life, which results in them going astray and being swallowed into  the world of crime. This is reflected in the Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report on ‘Amendments to Criminal Law’ which was not in favour of lowering the age criteria for juvenile offenders who are involved in grave crimes such as rape..The report revealed that juvenile homes were unable to provide basic requirements that are essential for the development of the children in order for them to be good and responsible citizens of the country.

There has been no constructive approach evolved towards development of these children through skill development or vocational training. Further, reportedly they are unable to fulfil a child’s emotional, physical, nutritional or mental needs resulting in degradation of the child’s life quality. Additionally, there exist infrastructural problems which hamper the safety of the juveniles making them more prone to sexual offences. These issues have more or less been ignored by the Government and thus the Act, even in its amended form fails in achieving its purpose. This view has also been supported by Justice Verma in his report, where he has criticized the narrow-minded approach taken by Indian lawmakers.

The Act has divided juvenile criminals into two groups, Juveniles in conflict with law and   Juveniles in need of care and protection (as defined in Section 17 of the JJ Act) for the younger ones. Some are of the view that  such a division will help the government to take better care of the juveniles, but that is arguably not the reality.  It is argued that what could happen instead is  that the children who are ‘in need of care and attention’ shall attract all the attention from the attendants, leaving the other group of juveniles neglected and unattended for. This may result in the neglected juvenile group beginning to be agitated and make wrong decisions in their lives instead of being reformed at these juvenile homes.

One solution for this particular problem is that the government can ensure that these juvenile homes are not understaffed by allocating adequate funds so that all groups of juveniles  are well taken care of..However, an even better solution would be to divide the children into more than two groups. The division should be based on age and different needs of the children, as this categorization would be more customised. Further, they should ensure that the staff employed at these homes is well qualified and trained to take care of these juveniles as they play a crucial role in determining these children’s future.

Another suggestion to maintain and protect the mental health of these children is to have councillor visit these houses on a regular bases. Moreover, a regular audit of these juvenile shelters should be done by the government to maintain their standard and to keep a check on the reformation of the children, which is often ignored when the juvenile homes are left at the hands of NGOs without any government supervision. The unfortunate reality of these juvenile homes is that reformation is not a priority, resulting in only minuscule percent of these juvenile offenders actually getting reformed. Arguably, no reforms are taking place due to the complacency of the Centre in issuing the model rules, resulting in the states not giving the formation of guidelines as per the Act any priority.

Another shortcoming of the current system  which surfaced in a Delhi hit-and-run case before the High court was the difficulty in deciding whether the juvenile will undergo trial  under the Juvenile Justice Act or  under the normal procedure as an adult. Even a slight error in judgement by the Juvenile Justice Board would result in flagrant injustice towards  the juvenile offender. Though this decision in choosing a procedure  may seem insignificant, it impacts the life of an accused juvenile. Therefore  the court emphasised that this step should be undertaken with utmost vigilance. In fact, the Court took a new approach towards in this case by allowing the 17 year old accused juvenile in the case to cross examine the psychologist who has taken his preliminary psychological analysis as it was discovered that there was a procedural default as  the psychologist was not examined by the board in the initial trial.

The Juvenile Justice Act is in dire need of precise and clear interpretation, keeping in mind the effect adverse interpretation may have on the lives of juvenile accused. Further, there is an urgent need to improve the standard of juvenile homes in India in order to ensure that they are amenable to reformation process of juveniles. It is after all to be kept in mind that any uncertainty in the law pertaining to juvenile justice may cause grave injustice and irreparable damage to a child’s future.

____________

1.      Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.

2.      Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime Records Bureau, Indian Penal Code and Special Local Laws, Crime in India 2016 Statistics.

3.      Justice J.S.Verma Committee Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law, (January 23, 2013).

4.      PRS Legislative Research, Vital Stats Children in Conflict with Law, August 4, 2015, available at http://www.prsindia.org/administrator/uploads/general/1438698738_Children%20in%20conflict%20with%20law-%20Vital%20stats.pdf.

5.      Ved Kumari, The Juvenile Justice Act 2015 Critical Understanding, available at http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/43137/1/005_The%20Juvenile%20Justice%20Act%202015%20Certical%20Understanding%20%2883-103%29.pdf

6.      The Hindu, ‘Juvenile Justice Act has failed miserably’, June 13, 2016, available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/juvenile-justice-act-has-failed-miserably/article4337040.ece /

7.      First Post, Understaffed and overcrowded, juvenile homes are hell holes rather than reform centre, Jun 19, 2016, available at https://www.firstpost.com/living/understaffed-and-overcrowded-juvenile-homes-are-hell-holes-rather-than-reform-centres-2842894.html

8.      Scroll.in, A year since the new Juvenile Justice Act came into being, chaos rules its implementation, Jan 15, 2017, available at https://scroll.in/article/826668/a-year-since-the-new-juvenile-justice-act-came-into-being-chaos-rules-its-implementation /

9.      The Hindu, Juvenile in Delhi Mercedes hit-and-run case to be tried as adult, September 16, 2016, available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/Juvenile-in-Delhi-Mercedes-hit-and-run-case-to-be-tried-as-adult/article14384607.ece / (last visited on July 25,2018).