Question

What are the issues for protection child rights

Answer 1

India, till about end of 2015 could boast of one of the most progressive acts for the Juveniles which believed in reform of the young and re-integration into the society. The act which came into force from last week of January 2016, named as Juvenile Justice will probably not do justice to the young anymore. The new legislation is based on the flawed assumption that sending children to the adult criminal justice system would solve the problem of juvenile crime as well as women safety. Unfortunately, this assumption has been derived primarily because of the systemic failure of the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act (2000) in spirit. Now it has to be seen whether the current system and infrastructure would be able to do justice to the enforcement of the new legislation. 
The new Juvenile Justice Act is envisaged to adopt a ‘two stage process’ to ensure justice to the children who fall within the ambit of this legislation. The Juvenile Justice Boards have been given the additional responsibility to ascertain whether the juvenile in conflict with the law will be tried under the juvenile system or the adult system. This process is highly significant and will act as the first step to ensure that no innocent child is sent to the adult criminal justice system.

We need to ask a fundamental question here. Are the Juvenile Justice Boards, in their current state equipped to take up responsibility and reach a judicious decision which would impact the rest of the life of the children involved? This process itself is marred with serious gaps. 

Under the Juvenile Justice Act (2000) every district is mandated to have at least one Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). After the (2000) Act came into force; there were serious concerns about not just the implementation but the mere existence of statutory bodies like the Child Welfare Committees and the JJB across all districts.

Further, the JJBs have been struggling with pending cases and the duration of trial has also exceeded the mandated period. The 2014 data which provided 12,619 trials (“inquiries” as per JJ Act) conducted by the Boards show that the trial or inquiry was completed only in a mere 16.5% of the cases in six months. In around 30% of the cases, the duration of the trial exceeded even the mandated period of detention of 3 years.

These alarming numbers of pending cases are a matter of concern in almost all states. Lesser number of sittings held by the board also adds on to the pendency of the cases.

According to NCPCR report on the National Conference by Juvenile Justice Board last year in May, about 44% of the JJB members interviewed said that less than three sittings per week were held.

The new bill allows young children to be tried as adults in more than 46 offences under the Indian Penal Code and other acts. Given this, the number of cases will increase manifold, thus increasing the already existing burden on the JJBs. Children have to bear the agony of this delay.  Ideally, there should not be more than 100 inquiries pending before each JJB so that they can be disposed of in the required period of four months. Given the circumstances, the JJBs have a difficult if not impossible task to handle.

The Selection of the members of the JJ Board is yet another area which should be vehemently discussed. In the Juvenile Justice Act 2000, the constitution of the selected committee has been referred in the JJ Rules. In the duration of the implementation of the law, there have been various delays and concerns in the selection procedure. We expect the new law to spell out a formal procedure for the selection of statutory authorities with a clear reference which unfortunately is not the case.

CRY, working for over three decades on ground across the country, has experienced the impact of the same.

In our intervention area in Uttar Pradesh, for instance, the tenure of the members of the committee has been over for a year and a half and the new committee has not been constituted. This has inevitably led to non- appointment of JJB members, in which the tenure of the old members has been extended. The vacant positions in JJBs across the country aren’t surprising. The fact that there are many vacancies in the required clerical staff as well adds to the woes.

Research has proven that assessment of individual maturity and mental capacity is extremely difficult. The suggested assessment process may be arbitrary or may be influenced by biases & is likely to be erroneous. While this assessment cannot be objectively carried out, the law refers to a provision that the Board may take assistance of a professional to take this decision.  It is common knowledge that there is a dearth of professional counsellors/ psychologists who can be consulted by JJB in every district. This is an area of concern which will have substantial impact on the decision of the JJB.