| Font Size |
Seeking a comprehensive response from the Centre, a Bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said that the court would deal with the validity of the law on the “judicial side” and hence recommendations by the government-mandated Verma committee could not provide the answers to the questions raised in a PIL.
The petitioner asked the court to declare certain provisions of the Act in violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution. It also sought that certain provisions be held unconstitutional, pointing out that the definition of “juvenile in conflict with law” accords absolute immunity to delinquents up to the age of 18 years from being prosecuted like adults despite the gravity of their crimes.
“Should the fixation of age as 18 years have some nexus with the crime? The question that this petition raises is that the gravity of crime must have some connection with the determination of age and its benefits,” said the court, addressing Attorney General G E Vahanvati.
The AG had been requested by the Bench on Friday to appear before it and communicate the Centre’s stand.
The AG began by saying that the issue of age and culpability of juveniles had been gone into extensively by the Verma report. “That could be... but we want to deal with it on the judicial side,” responded the Bench.
Vahanvati then pointed out that law and order was a state subject and also that several NGOs had raised this issue after the Delhi gangrape case. The court however reminded the AG that the Juvenile Justice Act was a central government law.
“This is your law. The states have no role and we are not going to hear the NGOs. We are on the constitutional validity of these provisions in question. This is your law and they will have to be tested on the anvils of Articles 14 and 21,” it said.
Agreeing that the matter required some consideration, Vahanvati referred to the juvenile offender in the gangrape case, saying: “The question is why he (juvenile) has done what he has done. Has the society failed him or there are other reasons? This will also be significant. Moreover, if anybody says that it (the juvenile age) should be reduced to 16 years, there will be other factors that would work against even this age limit. There will be different views,” he added.
At this, the court made it clear that its scrutiny was not because of the facts in any particular case but that it wished to examine the point of law since India was also a signatory to several international conventions that held different views on the subject. It then asked the AG to file a detailed counter-affidavit to the petition by March 30 and listed the matter for further hearing on April 3.
Meanwhile, advocates Sukumar and Kamal Kumar Pandey, petitioners in the case, submitted before the Bench that the benefits of age for juvenile offenders was completely “arbitrary and irrational” under the Act. The lawyers cited provisions under the Indian Penal Code of 1860 which offered some discretion to judges in determining criminal liability of children.
The petition had contended that Sections 82 and 83 of the IPC represented a much better classification of children since these provisions took into account not just their age but also the nature of offences committed by them. “Children up to the age of seven years are totally exempted from any criminal liability and for older children, there is a judicial discretion to judge as to the maturity level of the child in respect to the offence committed,” it stated.
The plea complained that the effect of the IPC provisions was negated by the Juvenile Justice Act and offenders up to the age of 18 were treated like those under seven years by the IPC.
Please tell me, why in such case a juvenile is pardoned. Did he act like a juvenile when he started the torture or should we consider that if he was not he wouldn't had done this. Wakeup India, this rogue is a piece of dirt which needs to be cleaned. But I personally feel, do not hang him, in the single stroke he will not understand the tremendous pain the brave heart had to undergo. I want all of them to suffer and feel the pain, the agony. Give them death, but a slow, painful & exemplary one.
Please tell me, why in such case a juvenile is pardoned. Did he act like a juvenile when he started the torture or should we consider that if he was not he wouldn't had done this. Wakeup India, this rogue is a piece of dirt which needs to be cleaned. But I personally feel, do not hang him, in the single stroke he will not understand the tremendous pain the brave heart had to undergo. I want all of them to suffer and feel the pain, the agony. Give them death, but a slow, painful & exemplary one.
By saying that you are only revealing the criminal and inhuman side of yours. Punishing in the name of justice must not be like another Crime. And let me ask you something, would you like the same law for a juvenile female? If you mind stops with this question then be present to the fact that you have (been raised with) lot of MISANDRY i.e. Hatred for Men in genenral. Peace !
Law do not allow a person to lawfully satisfy its sexual desire (By marriage) till he is 21 and she is 18. So we have no right to punish them if they fulfill their sexual desires unlawfully. Please note that sexual urge starts at the age of puberty (14-16 years). So the juveniles should not be punished for sexual crimes, till the age of marriage is reduced by law amendments. As for other crimes such as murder or grievous hurt etc, the Juveniles should be punished, with extreme care and ruling out misuse espacially by police. However, children that have not reached puberty yet, should be exempted from punishment. Extreme care should be taken so that police do not mistreat and misuse law to get confession from juveniles.
For sexual pleasure allowing marriage at a lower age is MISTAKE. Infact the age for amrriage should be elevated as some do marriage decisions based on raging hormones and that is at the root of many many marital and (hence) criminal problems. As non-Indian as it may sound , why not legalize prostitution in India , it exists anyway! Provide sex education to the young and allow consentual sex if a couple wants and let that not be a marriage lock-in bat by any of the parties. Change would come, it is knocking.. India .Embrace it !!
In cases of extreme violent/sexual crimes where the juvenile is at risk of being a repeat offender (such as the Delhi gang rape/murder), how does the government propose to EFFECTIVELY rehabilitate, evaluate and then track the individual in question? Or is it just: let him out and hope for the best? In Western countries, a significant amount of money and resources is poured into therapy of juveniles and reintegration into society--and public safety is of primary importance. What will happen in India? Justice Verma's report has described the state of juvenile homes as "deplorable" and as breeding grounds for further criminal activity. Compassion is wonderful, but let us remember to first be compassionate to all the women who may come face to face with violent juvenile offenders when they are released.
NO LEEWAY TO ANYBODY SHOULD BE GIVEN? A CRIMINAL OF MURDER OR RAPE, SPECIALLY THE GANG-RAPE, SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME PUNISHMENT? THAT IS, ONLY ONE PUNISHMENT OF EITHER LIFE IMPRISONMENT OR DEATH (I WOULD PREFER THE LATER TO SAVE TAXPAYER'S MONEY) SHOULD BE AWARDED TO SIMPLIFY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. NO MANIPULATION BY JUDGES, LAWYERS, GOVT OR THE MONEYBAGS???
Death penalty is uncivilized and inhuman, its irreversible if one comes to know at later point that the person was innocent or has medical disorders. We have to bear with dirt of the society by confining them to their own place where they can enjoy civil liberty as others can.
In the developed economies, it is considered that if person is old enough to commit aggravated rape and assault leading to murder, that person is old enough to understand seriousness of what he is doing. Where a person commits such crime, these aggravated factors should be considered and then judge should be given the leeway to either try him in adult court (with some protection) or try him in Juvenile court. This issue has been dealt with in developed economies, whom we inevitably follow eventually...
I am pleasantly surprised by the maturity with which the Indian judiciary, including the SC and the advocates who filed the PIL, are acting. It is quite exceptional to hear a mature debate of such thorny constitutional questions and a hallmark of a true democracy in action. While AG Vahanvati may find himself in an uncomfortable position, it is essential to settle such issues satisfactorily albeit expeditiously, and not side-stepped for judicial/political exigency or under pressure from ideological lobbies/popular sentiment.
The point is that Man and Women are not same, then why crime against women have the same Juvenile age as against Men. If crime against women then Juvenile age should be reduce to 14 years as 14 year boy can overpower any age women and can do crime easily. If Juvenile crime against men then it can be consider 16 years but after 16 year it depend who is stronger in Men too. If not agree then why there are different games standard for Boys/ Girls %u2026make it all equal.
