GOVERNMENT BILL

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill,

2015 -- Contd.
THE MINISTER OF WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT (SHRIMATI MANEKA SANJAY GANDHI):
This is a very comprehensive Bill. This Bill propose to reduce the age
of a juvenile from 18 year to 16 years if it is perceived that he has
committed a heinous crime with an adult mind. Suppose a child
commits a crime in the heinous category such as murder, rape, arson,
and he is under 18, he will then go before a Juvenile Justice Board.
The Board has psychologists, social workers and experts. They will
decide whether he committed the crime with an adult mind or a
childish mind. Now, if the Board decides that this child committed
this crime in a childlike fashion, even if it is rape, he will get the
benefit of the doubt and go in for three years into reforms school. As
the Nirbhaya boy did, if it is perceived that it was a thought-out, adult,
mature crime, then the JJ Board could decide that the child should go
in to the adult system. In the adult system, they are provided with the
same access to justice as adults are. These children will then appear
before court and the court will decide whether they are to go in to an
adult system or to a juvenile system.
If the court decides that they are to go into adult jail, even
then they have the power of appeal in High Court and Supreme Court.
At the end of all these steps, if it is decided that they are to go to adult
jail, they will still not be put into adult jail along with adults. They
will be put into a childrens jail. At the age of 21, there will be another
check on, and if that check decides that they have now reformed, they
will be released. If it is decided that they still are of that criminal bent
of mind, then they will serve their full sentences. We can't make
separate homes for rapists, for young murderers, for young arsonists
and for young Kashmiri terrorists. Maybe a very small percentage
will go to jail due to this Bill. But it certainly will put a check on the
crimes committed by the juveniles. Our police stations are abounding
with self-confessed crimes because these 16-year olds know that at the
moment nothing can happen to them except a three-year stint in a
197

reform school. When they finish this, they will get money from the
State to start their life properly. But the victim of such crimes gets
nothing. This is neither my Bill nor my Governments Bill. It is a
matter of the whole House.
THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (SHRI GHULAM
NABI AZAD): The 'Nirbhaya' case was the heart-rending one. The
whole country along with all the parties had expressed their anguish
over this issue. After this case a committee under the chairmanship of
Justice J. S. Verma was constituted by the then Government and it was
decided to amend the Criminal Law, so that the laws related to rape
and sexual abuses could be made more stringent. Today the whole
country is discussing whether the age of a juvenile should be 16 years
or 18 years. Different countries are having different age-limits for the
same but we should take a decision in this regard according to our
country and society. In total cases committed by such juveniles 50 per
cent children are under 16 years of age. But it is also a fact that these
juveniles are being used by the gangsters and terrorists etc. In my
view they should be kept in jails separately. The Juvenile Justice
Board must be made broad based. In jails, there must be a system of
imparting education and training. Police patrolling and electricity
should be ensured in the lanes of big cities.
SHRI NARAYAN LAL PANCHARIYA: We have a legacy
of extending good melioration to children from childhood. This is a
matter of concern that the crime rate in children is increasing in the
country. Children of ages between 13 to 18 need much attention of
parents. In this money minded era, joint families are broken and the
concept of nuclear family is in vogue. For last many years there has
been a rise in crime rate among juvenile. Earlier legislation was not
very effective. Children exploitation would be controlled by this. The
good thing is that there is no provision of capital punishment and life
imprisonment. I support this Bill.
SHRI RAVI PRAKASH VERMA: I think that there would
be some fruitful result of this Act. Media must be more accountable.
Today media single out an incidence and start projecting, while such
incidences are happening throughout the country. Criminals from
198

organised crime are using children as their tools. Small children are
being put into war brigade and this process is being going not only in
India but worldwide. The subject of organised crime has not yet been
discussed in the Parliament. The piece meal remedy will not work at
all. The Juvenile Justice Board has been constituted, I doubt. The
provisions made for Rehabilitation Justice Board and the Juvenile
Justice Board are not appropriate. If children are neglected, this
country would never progress. There must be a common education
system in India. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening.
Consequently, many perversions are being created. Children and
women are being discriminated in this country. You go with this law. I
hope that you would succeed in your motive.
MS. ANU AGA: I am against lowering the age of a juvenile
to 16 years in case of heinous offence. If a juvenile commits a heinous
crime it is a reflection that society has failed in its responsibility. We
should find humane and sensitive ways of preventing such acts rather
than lowering the age. We should discuss about the horrible condition
of our juvenile homes and how they can be improved. Kindly do not
lower the age and this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.
SHRIMATI KAHKASHAN PERWEEN: Today we are
discussing a very serious matter. The whole House is concerned about
this issue. Lowering the age of a juvenile to 16 years in case of
heinous offence is a right step. Today children are committing crimes
and illiteracy, unemployment, poverty and starvation are the main
reasons behind such crimes. In order to keep check on child crimes we
should give proper education to children. It is my request that when a
child comes out of a reform house then he must be
given education. Proper arrangements must be done for his
rehabilitation also. Government must try to address root cause of the
crimes being done by the children. We should ensure reform of such
children. We must try to make our juvenile reform system more
effective.
SHRI DEREK O'BRIEN: I support this Bill. It is a serious
matter. Kindly do not mix up child rights with women rights as we
199

debate this law. It is a complex Bill. There are many provisions in this
Bill which are for reform. The fundamental purpose of this Act is that
reform is first and penalty is the last resort. This is a very important
part. On Juvenile Justice Boards the provisions have been defined.
Juvenile Justice Boards have to be set on the foundation of
rehabilitation and reform. Role of the Juvenile Justice system is very
important. We need to work very hard. If our children are becoming
criminals then we are responsible for that. This Bill says that after
three years the child is automatically out of the juvenile home.
Consider changing that number from three to seven years to ten years.
In the Bill for selling a child the penalty is five years but if you offer
drugs to a child then it is seven years. Kindly consider this
discrepancy.
SHRI A. NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN: This is a very
important Bill. The Nirbhaya case was dismissed yesterday only
because of the absence of this kind of a provision. The amendment
that the Government now wants to bring is that whenever any heinous
offence is committed by a child in the age group of 16 to 18 then he
would be tried as an adult. The Government wants to bring these
provisions into force. If a child commits an offence in the age of 16
and 18, he will be treated for ever as an adult. It is unfair because they
are all hailing mostly from the poor families. If a person is involved in
a heinous offence he will be permanently taken away from his
livelihood. He will not be employed by the Government or by the
private employers. I earnestly urge this august House to reconsider
this provision and do the needful. Proper rehabilitation is not done.
This provision is going to apply for future offences. Justice should be
rendered to children in the age group of 16 and 18. Rights to the
parents of the victims must be protected. Though an opportunity
should be given to the children and it is contemplated in the
provisions, that is not sufficient. Necessary amendments should be
brought in and also legal aid must be given to victims as well as to the
children. Tamil Nadu is the first State in our country to notify the
Rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000. We have already established seven institutions under the
existing Act. Necessary amendments must be brought in to provide
200

legal aid to the children who are in conflict with law and also to the
victims. Regarding employment, necessary steps must be taken to
protect the interests of the children.
SHRI SATISH CHANDRA MISRA: There is some
contradiction in the Board constituted by you. So, I want an
explanation. As far as clause 15 is concerned, the word "consequence"
has been inserted in it which has no meaning at all. "Consequence" is
a vague word. The board would decide the meaning of "consequence"
first that to which court the offender should be sent. What are the
'circumstances' with regard to rape are known to every body. If a child
is committing rape we need not look at his mental status. As far as the
age 16 is concerned, in clause 15 (1) you could have excluded the
word rape from it. Then only it would have been an honest protection
in true sense. So, this must be thought over. The states must be
provided funds for all kinds of child welfare schemes. The moral
science education is not there in our schools and society. So, we have
to change the mind-set of the people. I support this Bill.
SHRI RITABRATA BANERJEE: The law cannot be
applied to the person who committed the crime as no retrospective
effect will be there. Defining the intensity of the crime is the moot
question. The heinous crime needs to be defined, not the age. The
provision of treating juvenile as an adult contravenes
the UN Convention. Some penalties provided in the Bill are not in
proportion to the gravity of the offence. The present amendment
moved by the Union Government will not serve the purpose and is
retrogressive in nature. The solution to the problem has to be thought
of within the parameters of the Juvenile Justice Act itself. The
punitive measure of transferring the juvenile to the ordinary criminal
court does not act as a deterrent to future juvenile criminals.
Child-friendly objective of the bill was mentioned in the House.
Scientific studies have clearly established that individualised
assessment of adolescent maturity is impossible. Most of the juveniles
who were apprehended belong to the poorest of the poor families
and had little opportunity to be educated. To subject them to further
201

brutalisation would indeed be an injustice. Young boys are going to

Islamic State of Iraq. There needs to be provision of more funds
when you propose these things. Moot question is the intensity of the
crime and not the age. Atrocities on women are continuing. People
associated with this Bill have different views. They need to be
consulted. My party feels that it needs to be sent to a Select
Committee.
SHRI DILIP KUMAR TIRKEY: These days, boys of 18 or
lesser age are involved in heinous crimes like murder or rape. Taking
advantage of their age, they escape proper punishment. Law
concerning juvenile justice needs to be reviewed. Young children of
above sixteen years, involved in heinous crimes are being tried as
adults everywhere. Therefore, it is the right decision to reduce the age
from 18 to 16 years to be considered adult for trying for heinous
crimes under this amendment bill. District level Juvenile Justice Board
must be made responsible to ensure that this law is not misused. It is
good that there is provision for care and protection of needy children
in this bill. It is suggested that, there must be at least two women
members in CWC. It is my suggestion that there should be provision
of stringent punishment for persons selling children. I support this bill.
SHRIMATI VANDANA CHAVAN: Our heart goes out to
every victim who is a victim of sexual assault in this country. A relook
at the present provisions relating to juvenile justice is required.
It should not be done in the form of the provisions of the present Bill
where the child is to be tried selectively as an adult criminal. In the
Verma Committee Report, there has been a consistent stand on not
recommending reduction of the age-limit from 18 to 16 years.
Scientific studies on the adolescent brain and psychology totally
contradict the presumption that juvenile engaged in crimes such as
rape and murder are more mature. At present, science establishes that
younger people engaged in risky behaviour precisely because of an
under-developed brain. The present law and its provisions can be
effective with a few amendments, such as increasing the period of
detention from three years to 5 to 6 years and also further monitoring
202

the juvenile. We don't have adequate Juvenile Justice Boards, Child

Welfare Committees and special homes. Individual Care Plans
according to the Act are not being prepared. There should be greater
commitment in terms of financial allocations also which is totally
missing. We have miserably failed our children who need our help to
reform. I would make an appeal to this august House that we should
send this Bill to a Select Committee.
SHRI K.T.S. TULSI: This Bill has struck a perfect harmony
between the need for stringence and also taking care of the rights of
children. This Bill is not giving up the rights of children in any
manner. Psychologists now feel that the children are grown-ups by the
age of 14 years and to be responsible for their actions. There has been
a sudden spurt in the crimes that are committed by children or the
murders which are committed by children between the age of 16 and
18 years. I commend the Government for having crafted a legislation
which takes care of the rights of children and, at the same time,
ensures that they are held liable for their criminal acts. The definition
of a child remains 18 years of age. There are three ingredients of that.
The first is the mental and physical capacity. The second ingredient is
that they must understand the consequences of their actions. And the
third factor which has to be taken into account is the circumstances in
which he has allegedly committed the offence. This is a perfect
legislation and will meet the expectation of the society.
SHRI RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR: I believe this is an
important Bill that requires discussion and passing at the earliest. This
Bill is really about justice for women and victims who have suffered
rape and murder. There has been a 143 per cent increase in the number
of rapes committed by juveniles in the last ten years. In the same
period, figures for murders committed by juveniles went up by 87
percent and a whopping 500 percent increase is noted in the number of
kidnapping of women and girls by minors. In the light of these facts,
none of us should have any hesitation in supporting this Bill. Justice
for victims is important. But, at the same time, we must not forget that
we have an obligation to protect our children. A child is a child. And,
203

this must not be forgotten while we enter this debate of punishing

violent juveniles. The Bill must be specific about the definition of
'heinous offences'. JJB is a very, very powerful institution in
determining the future of a child who is accused of a crime. And, JJB
today, in the Act, has a very, very broad vague criteria and I hope that
the hon. Minister focuses on this issue after the Bill is passed.
PROF. M.V. RAJEEV GOWDA: I dedicate this speech to
the memory of Nirbhaya. It is very important that juvenile perpetrators
of heinous crimes should be punished. The main issue we must
consider is whether or not the proposed changes will reduce crimes
committed by juveniles and whether this Bill will result in an
improvement in reformation of juveniles who are found guilty.The
key issue that is agitating the nation right now is the issue of transfer
of juvenile to the Adult Justice System.Studies from the U.S. have
shown that sending juveniles to adult prisons is like sending them to
schools of crime. In India, we have special laws for children because
there is a need for it. Adolescents are more prone to peer influence,
their ability to understand legal processes and make decisions related
to these cases is not the same as adults. If our Juvenile Justice Boards
dont have the trained manpower to do a reasonable job of preliminary
assessment, if such qualified Juvenile Justice Boards are not available
in every district, then we are setting up a system that will fail in
achieving our goals.Then, there is the Constitutionality of this law
also. Under Article 15(3) of the Constitution, we are allowed to make
laws that protect our children but not one that is against our children.
We must take these points into consideration. Otherwise, all this hard
work will go to naught and the law will be struck down.
SHRI ANIL MADHAV DAVE: On this Bill, the country is
not only watching this Parliament but listening to it with full attention
also. Murder and rape are state of mind. I feel that we must go into its
root. We are considering over how a criminal should be dealt with.
Our consideration is not that much on the victim. A person is capable
of committing rape, yet he is a child. I feel that in such a type of crime
every person must think at least once that had this crime taken place
204

with his daughter or son, what would have been his decision? I feel
that home and education these two are the roots of crime. Our viewpoint is the root of crime. Today, there is such a situation that a
daughter is not safe at her home, she is not safe with relatives. We
will have to think over our education system and home equally.

SHUMSHER K. SHERIFF,
Secretary-General.
rssynop@sansad.nic.in
__________________________________________________
****Supplement covering rest of the proceedings is being issued
Separately.

205