Maneka Gandhi does well to moot key changes
The usual howls of protest have begun after Union Minister for Women and Child Development Maneka Gandhi recently said she was seeking an amendment to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to ensure stringent punishment to juveniles accused of heinous crimes like rape and murder. Social activists have slammed the move saying it would adversely impact children who deserve to be treated differently from adult criminals. They have claimed that the Juvenile Justice Act should not be tampered with to deal with exceptions, since offences by juveniles form only a small part of the total crimes committed. The activists are wrong on both counts. Juveniles who commit brutal rapes and murders do not deserve preferential treatment because they perpetrate the crimes despite fully knowing the gravity of what they do. In fact, many of them are aware that they can escape lightly because they are juveniles. Some of these are repeat criminals. And yet, they get away with at the most three years in a reform home. As for the argument of juveniles being involved in an insignificant portion of the total crimes committed, nothing can be more misleading. According to figures of the National Crime Records Bureau, there has been a 158 per cent rise in rapes committed by juveniles in Delhi. In a recent case, three boys aged nine, 12 and 14 years raped and sodomised a seven-year old girl in Delhi. Instances in other States will give a similarly alarming picture. Given this reality, it is almost perverse on the part of those who continue to bat for the juveniles involved in such terrible crimes. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights chairperson Kushal Singh argues that juveniles must be given the chance to reform, which is the moving spirit behind the Juvenile Justice Act. Juvenile rapists and murderers do not turn a new leaf in reform homes; on the contrary, emboldened by the light sentence, they venture to become repeat offenders of the same crimes. laws are made to protect the innocent and not the criminal. The Juvenile Justice Act has been for far too long working to shield even the hardened juvenile offenders and deny justice to the victims.
There is, however, substance in the stand certain activists have taken, that an amendment to the Act must incorporate a case-by-case dealing of the offences. One suggestion is that the Juvenile Justice Board must be given the authority to determine, on the basis of material before it and the facts of the case, whether a juvenile accused should be tried in a regular court which can hand him a punishment that adult criminals get. In other words, the Board can deal leniently with juveniles hauled up on petty charges but refer to the regular courts crimes relating to murder or rape or a repeat offence. The other suggestion which merits attention is to lower the age bar for juveniles from the present 18 years to 16 years. And the third is that the existing punishment (if one can call it a ‘punishment') of a maximum of three years in a reform home should be enhanced. With even the Supreme Court of India questioning the ‘blanket immunity' juvenile criminals enjoy, Ms Gandhi must not succumb to delusional arguments by activists and ensure that the amendments she has in mind go through.