Petitioner (Craf)

TEAM C
SMT. VELAGAPUDI DURGAMBA SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE

1STALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF

HINDUSTAN
THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF

HINDUSTAN
WRIT PETITION NO: ____/ 2015

CASE CONCERNING THE AGE OF JUVENILE DELINQUENTS
CHILD RIGHTS ADVOCACY FOUNDATION
PETITIONER
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN

RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDUSTAN
MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONX
STATEMENT OF FACTSXI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.XIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTSXIV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.1
SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE COURT..XVI
II
~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
All India Report

And
Another
Article
AIR
&
Anr.
Art.
Corporation
Et Cetera
Fundamental Rights
Corp.
Etc
FRs
Honorable
Indian Law Institute
Integrated Child Protection Scheme
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act,2000
Limited
Madhya Pradesh
Honble
ILI
ICPS
JJCPA
ltd
M.PG.
Maximum
Max.
Minimum
Min.
National Crime Rate Bureau
NCRB
National Human Rights Commission

Number
Others
Page
Public Interest Litigation
Section
NHRC
No.
Ors
Pg.
PIL
Sec.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Judges Library
SC
SCC
SCJL
Through
Thr.
Union of India
United Nations
UOI
UN
III
United States
Uttar Pradesh
Versus
U.S.
U.P
v.
Volume
West Bengal
Vol.
W.B.
IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
U.N CONVENTIONS
United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Child, 1959
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 Entered into force on March 23, 1976
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985 (Beijing
Rules)
Convention on the Rights of Child, 1989, Entered into force on 2.9.1990
United Nations Guidelines for Prevention of Juvenile delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines), 1990
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juvenile deprived of their liberty, 1990
The Hague Convention On Protection Of Children And Corporation In Respect Of Country
Adoption, 1993
Guidelines for Action on Children and Criminal Justice System, Vienna, 1997
United Nations Committee On The Rights Of The Child- General Comments On Childrens
Rights In Juvenile Justice, 2000
STATUTES
Constitution of India
Indian Penal Code,1860
Civil Procedure Code,1908
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act,2000
Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Rules,2007
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
CASE
CITATION
Art. L. Kalra V. P & E Corp. Of India Ltd.

Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Naik ,
Abuzar Hossain v. State Of W.B.
Ajahar Ali v. State Of West Bengal
Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari (ABSK)
Sangh v. Union Of India
Arvindar Singh Bagga v. State Of U.P
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Bandhua Mukti Morcha etc. v. UOI & Ors
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
AIR 1987 SC 1361, 1367

AIR 1992 SC 1701
AIR 2013 SC 1020
AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 18
ART.I.R 1981 SC 298
FOOTNOTE
NO.
74
29
91
91
14
AIR 1995 SC 117

(2008) 6 SCC 1
AIR 1982 SC 1325
AIR 1997 SC 2218
(1984) 3 SCC 161
31
24
74
82
16, 78
V
Bellotti v. Baird
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty
Childline India Foundation & Anr. V. Allan John
Waters & Ors
Consumer Education & Research Centre V.
Union Of India
Corp Francis Coralie v. Union Territory Of
Delhi;
Dr. Subramanian Swamy And Ors v. Raju Thr.
Member Juvenile Justice
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor
Congress
E.P. Royappa v. State Of Tamil Nadu
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union V. Union
Of India
Fracis Coralie v. Delhi,
Githa Hariharan & Anr. v. Reserve Bank Of
India & Anr.
Gopi Nath Ghosh v. State Of West Bengal
443 U.S. at 634

AIR 1996 SC 922:
(2011) 6 SCC 261.
87
20
80
AIR 1995 SC 922
20
AIR 1981 SC 746:
20
(2014) 8 SCC 390
110
AIR 1983 SC 130

AIR 1991 SC 101
73
74
AIR 1974 SC 555

ART.I.R 1981 SC 344
74
10
AIR 1981 SC 746

AIR 1999 SC 1149
77
69
Govind v. State Of M.P
AIR 1984 SC 237

AIR 1975 SC 1378
91
27
Hari Ram v. State Of Rajasthan,

Hussainara Khatoon v. State Of Bihar
(2009) 13 SCC 211

AIR 1979 SC 1369,1373
84
28
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdharv
AI.R 1993 SC 892
11
Kartar Singh v. State Of Punjab

Kharak Singh v. State Of U.P
Lakshmi Kanth Pandey V. Union Of India
M.G. Badappanavar v. State Of Karnataka
Mahesh Chandra V. Regional Manager, U.P.
Financial Corp.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India
May V. Anderson
(1994) 3 SCC 569

AIR 1963 SC 1295
AIR 1984 SC 469
AIR 2001 SC 260
AIR 1993 SC 935
29
20, 27
70
72
74
AIR 1978 SC 597

345 U.S. 528, 536, 73 S.Ct.
840, 844, 97 L.Ed. 1221
(1953)
AIR 1980 SC 1789, 1806.
ART.I.R 1976 SC 1455
94 U.S. 113 (1877)
AIR 1986 SC 180
442 U.S. 584, 603, 99 S.Ct.
2493, 2505, 61 L.Ed.2d 101
(1979)
77
54
Minerva Mills Ltd V. Union Of India

Mumbai Kamgar Sabha V. Abdul Bhai
Munn V. Illinois
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Parham v. J.R
38
9
77
20, 23
85
VI
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union ART.I.R 1982 SC

of India
Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration
AIR 1980 SC 1535
Roper V. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005)
S.P. Gupta v. Union Of India
1981 Supp SCC 87
Salil Bali v. Union Of India And Anr.
AIR 2013 SC 3743
Satto V. State Of U.P
AIR 1979 SC 1519
Schall v. Martin
467 U.S. 253, 265, 104 S.Ct.
2403, 2410, 81 L.Ed.2d 207
(1984)
State Of M.P. V. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.
AIR 2003 SC 727
State Of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
AIR 1951 SC 226
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,
ART.I.R 1978 SC 1675:
Thompson V. Oklahoma
487 U.S. 815 (1988)
Vincent V. Union Of India,
(1987) 2 SCC 165
Visakha v. State Of Rajasthan
AIR 1997 SC 3011
15
30
88
13
56
83
55
25
35
12
89
22
20
BOOKS
BAKSHI P.M., The Constitution of India, 10th Edition,2012, Universal Law Publishing Co
BASU DD, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol.-10,8th Edition, 2012, LexisNexis,
ButterworthsWadhwa
JAIN M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition, 2010, LexisNexis, ButterworthsWadhwa
PANDEY J.N., The Constitutional Law of India, 48th Edition, 2013 ,Central Law Agency
SHUKLA V.N., Constitution of India, 11th Edition,2012 Eastern Book Co
SIDDIQUE, Ahmad ,Criminology problems and perspectives. 3rd edition, 1993, Eastern Book
Company
SINGH, R K, Juvenile delinquency in India, The Universal Publishing Ltd.,1998
TANENHAUS, David S., Juvenile justice, Oxford Uni. Press, New York, 2004
RANI, KUMKUM, Commentaries on the juvenile justice act, 1986,Alia Law Agency, 2001
BRANDT, DAVID, Delinquency, development, and social policy, Yale University Press,
London, 2006
CHOUDHARY, R .N., Law relating of juvenile justice in India, Orient Publishing Company,
Allahabad, 2005
RICHARD E.REDDING, Juvenile Deliquency, Oxford Uni. press, New York,2005
ARTICLES
BALAKRISHNA, P , Juvenile Justice Act 1986 certain ambiguities in implementation a
critical study, Vol. 104, Criminal Law Journal,p.174, Nov. 1998
BALLAV DAS, Hrudaya, Changing concept to rights of child & juvenile justice, Human Rights
Year Book, p 141,2009
VII
BEDI, M S ,Coordination among juvenile justice functionaries, Vol. 16, Journal of Indian Law
Institute, p 8-14, Jan- Jun 1995
BURROW, John, Reverse waiver and the effects of legal, statutory and secondary legal factors
on sentencing outcomes for juvenile offenders ,Vol54,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p
34, Jan 2008
BUTTS, Jeffrey A & BUCK, Janeen, Sudden popularity of teen courts, Vol. 41,N Supreme
Court Judges Journal, p 29, Winter, 2002o
CHOUDHARY, D P, Promoting co-ordination within the implementation of juvenile justice act:
Problems and remedies, Vol. 110,Part 1256,Criminal Law Journal, p 225, August 2004
DAM, Shubanker,Juvenile at eighty, Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol. 48, No. 2, April June
2006, p 232) (ILI)
DAVIS, Carle P, At-risk girls and delinquency: Career pathwary, Vol. 53,No.3Crime &
Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 408, July 2007
DILLON, Rank R, Exploring the roles of parental monitoring of peers on relationship between
family functioning and delinquency in the lives of African, American and Hispanic adolescent.
Vol. 54,No.1,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 65, Jan 2008
DUCAN, Martha Grace ,So young and so untended: Remorseless children and the expectations
of the law, Vol. 102,Columbia Law Review, p 1469, Oct 2002
GUBA, R K, Juvenile justice certain inadequacies in law and enforcement, Vol. 100,Criminal
Law Journal, , p 46, June 1994
HARRISON, Paige & MAUPIN, James R, Teen court: An examination of processes and
outcomes, Vol. 47, Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 243, April 2001
JAAMDAR, S, Bringing justice to juveniles: Extension of poverty alleviation programmes, Vol.
30,Economic & Political Weekly, p 1833
JADHAV, Mary Clubwala, Legislation for juvenile delinquency in India, Vol. 5,CBI Bulletin, p
23,1997
JAYARAM, C, Juvenile delinquency and law, Vol. 75 Social Defence, p 22,1984
KADRI, H A, Juvenile justice: Care and protection of children act-2000: An overview Vol.
110,Criminal Law Journal, p 225, July 2004
KHURSHID, Hasan, Juvenile delinquency Vol. 2 ,Nyaya Kiran, , p 50, Oct Dec 2008
LEIBER, Michael J & JOHNSON, Joseph D, Being young and black: What are their effects on
juvenile justice decision making Vol. 54,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 277,oct 2008
MALHOTRA, Saurabh, Juvenile justice system, Vol. 107,Criminal Law Journal, p 2-7, Jan 2001
OMAJI, P , Custodial sentencing in Australias juvenile justice system, Vol. 37,Journal of
Indian Law Institute, p 483, October December 1995
PANDA, B P, Rights of child juvenile delinquency and administration of justice, Vol 1 Supreme
Court Journal, p 31, Feb 1996
PANDE, B .B., Implications of the linkages between juvenile destitution labour and delinquency
for juvenile justice in the contemporary Indian society, Vol. 14,Delhi Law Review, p 61,1992
PAVAL, K C, Juvenile justice: Victim of system, Vol. 44,Gujarat Law Reporter, ,p 157,
November 2003
PULLMANN, Michel D, Juvenile offenders with mental health needs: Reducing recidivism
using wraparound, Vol.52,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 375,january 2006
VIII
RAHA, SWAGATA,Exploring community as a resource in the treatment of delinquency, Vol.

32, Indian Socio-Legal Journal, p 133,2006
RAHA, SWAGATA, Treatment of juveniles in conflict with law: Legal framework and the
judicial response, Vol. 110, Criminal Law Journal, p J152, May 2004,
RAI, Ram Bhajan, World inquiry in the juvenile justice act 1986 a source of confusion and
misapplication, Vol. 105 ,Criminal Law Journal, p 49, April 1999
RATHI, B K, Juvenile justice. (Care and protection of children) act 2000: Does it require a
fresh look, Vol. 109,Criminal Law Journal, , p 229, Aug 2003
RAZDAN, U, Apex court towards humanizing the administration of juvenile justice,Vol
33,Journal of Indian Law Institute, p 366, July- September 1991
REDDY, C Sheela, Dimensions of juvenile crime: An Indian perspective, Vol. 7,South Asia
Politics, p 29-35, Aug 2008
REDDY, S SRINIVAS, Juvenile justice: Not a childs play, Vol. 6,Andhra Law Times, p 2832,2008
RICKARD, Erika, Paying lip service to the silenced: Juvenile justice in India, Vol. 21,Harvard
Human Rights Journal, p 155, Winter 2008
SANGHI, G L, Children and the law, Law & Justice, NHRC Journal, p 71,2001
SARAN, KARTIKEYA, Juvenile justice : Protecting the Child in need of care and
protection,Vol. 114,Criminal Law Journal, p 277- 83, October 2008
SAXENA, Shobha ,Legal changes to curb youth criminality Vol. 3,Supreme Court Journal, p 35,
November 1999
SINGH, P K, Juvenile justice (Care and protection of children) act, 2000: An enlightened step
for tackling the child prostitution ,Vol. 31, Indian Bar Review, p 407-12, July-Dec 2004
TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, Lillian Juvenile justice and the law in Uganda: Towards
restorative justice, Human Rights in Development Yearbook, p 291,2003
VED KUMARI, Current issues in juvenile justice in India, Vol. 41, Journal of Indian Law
Institute, p 392, July- Dec 1999
VED KUMARI, Quagmire of age issues under the juvenile justice act: From inclusion to
exclusion,Vol. 51,Journal of the Indian Law Institute, p 163, April June 2009
VED KUMARI: Relevant date for applicability of the juvenile justice act., Vol. 6,Supreme Court
Cases (Journal),p 9,2009
DYNAMIC LINKS
www.scconline .com
www.westlaw.com
www.manupatra.com
www.judis.nic.in
www.jstor.org
IX
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
CASE CONCERNING THE AGE OF JUVENILE DELIQUENTS
..Petitioner
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN
..Respondent
The counsel for petitioner has invoked the epistolary jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme Court
of Hindustan by the way of public interest litigation under Art. 321 of constitution. The petitioner
most humbly submit themselves to the jurisdiction of Honble court & shall bound by all orders,
directions that this Honble court may pass in exercise of the power conferred in its entirety &
good faith.
All of which is most respectfully submitted.
Art. 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.-(1) The right to move the Supreme Court
by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.(2) The Supreme
Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part.(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1)
and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or
any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall
not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background facts: The Republic of Hindustan is a country which is almost similar in
population, geographical area, historical heritage, crime rate and culture as that of the Republic
of India. Similarly, the Constitution of Hindustan and other prevailing domestic laws are in
parimateria with the Republic of India, except in regard to the reduction of the age of juveniles.
The Constitution of Hindustan contained various beneficial provisions for promoting and
protecting the rights and interests of children. The Parliament of Hindustan enacted and put in
place a law by name The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with the
laudable object of engendering welfare and wellbeing of juveniles. The print and electronic
media in the Republic of Hindustan had blown out of proportion the incidents of offences of
rape, murder, kidnapping, and similar such offences committed by juveniles against the girl child
& women delineated a juvenile as a person not attaining the age of his/her 18th year of age. The
survey shockingly and stupendously disclosed that a considerable number of such offences are
committed against women by juveniles.
Amendment in JJCPA, 2000: Consequently, the said Amendment was successfully made to the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The said Amendment clearly provided that any juvenile in between
the age of 16 to 18 years commits any offence of rape, murder, kidnapping, abduction and
offences of such analogous nature then such offender shall be treated as an adult offender only.
The said Amendment was challenged by the petitioner spearheading the cause of child rights and
welfare in the Republic of Hindustan before the Supreme Court seeking declaration that it is
invalid, void and unconstitutional on various grounds. Amendment was against the very spirit of
the International Covenants, was in flagrant flouting of the constitutional provisions & core
principles of juvenile justice, also it was contrary to the established judicial precedents. If the
amendment founded on the skewed survey which was far from the reality at ground level etc., is
implemented it would make juveniles into hardened and habitual criminals as well as would
dehumanize the criminal administration of justice. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Art. 32
of the Constitution in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hindustan challenging the
Amendments made to the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000.
XI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS-STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT

PETITION?
1.1 Whether PIL under the said petition is maintainable?
2. WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER THAT
THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT IS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL
COVENANTS,
CONSTITUTIONAL
IDEALS,
CORE
PRINCIPLES
OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS

LEGALLY TENABLE?
2.1 Whether the said amendment violates the international covenants and other
obligation?
2.2 Whether the said amendment violates the constitutional ideals?
2.3 Whether the said amendment violates the core principle of juvenile justice and
established precedents?
3. WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT
LOWERING OF THE AGE OF JUVENILES IN THE LIGHT OF SURVEY
FINDINGS & EARLY PRECOCITY OF CHILD IS LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE?
3.1 Whether the said amendment is made taking into consideration the scientific studies
and psychological aspects?
3.2 Whether the amendment violates the rights and fundamental principles enshrine in
the act itself?
4. WHETHER
THE
IMPUGNED
AMENDMENT
DEHUMANIZES
THE
CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS CONTENDED BY THE

PETITIONER?
4.1 Whether under the amendment it is friendly to make children criminals?
XII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
PETITION?
a. PIL under the said petition is maintainable
The petitioner has the locus standi to file the present petition under the head of PIL, which is
maintainable because there is a gross violation of rights of the children which are bestowed upon
them by the various international conventions, constitutional principles and ideals of juvenile
justice act itself. Petitioner acting bonafide in good faith filed the present petition for the cause of
rights of children who cannot lobby themselves for their rights.
2. WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER THAT
THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT IS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL
COVENANTS,
CONSTITUTIONAL
IDEALS,
CORE
PRINCIPLES
OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS

LEGALLY TENABLE?
a. Amendment violates the international covenants and other obligations
Childhood is a significant phrase of development as it holds the potential to the future
development of society, state must play its part as protector of rights of children. For this purpose
our country has ratified many international covenants in which it is explicitly mentioned that
every person under the age of eighteen are to be considered as a child who needs protection and
care under the law of the land. Thus the said amendment violates the very principle of
international obligations.
b. Amendment violates the constitutional ideals
The impugned amendment violates constitutional ideals guaranteed under Art.14, Art.15(3),
Art.21A, Art.21, Art.24, Art.39(e), Art.39(f), Art.45, Art.47, reducing the age of juveniles and
treating them as a separate class is contrary to doctrine of reasonable classification.
XIII
c. Amendment violates the core principle of juvenile justice and established precedents
The main objective of the juvenile justice act is to save the young offenders from getting sucked
into the criminal justice system so early on in life and to allow them to reform. However, the
impugned amendment would not only defeat the very aim but also labelize the innocent offender
as a hardened criminal leaving their future in the dark.
LOWERING OF THE AGE OF JUVENILES IN THE LIGHT OF SURVEY
FINDINGS & EARLY PRECOCITY OF CHILD IS LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE?
a. Amendment is made taking into consideration the scientific studies
and
psychological aspects
The said amendment is based merely on the outrage and skewed surveys by media. It failed to
take into the consideration the scientific aspect of juvenile delinquency. Neuroscientist conform
that the pre frontal cortex which is responsible for functions like planning, judgment and impulse
control, is the slowest to mature and requires the age of 25 to mature fully.
b. Amendment violates the rights and fundamental principles enshrine in the act itself
The objective of the impugned amendment in regard with the existing act is to cater to the
developmental needs of the children creating a sub class within a class itself and treating them as
par with the adult offender is against the interest of the juvenile and nor it is child friendly.
4. WHETHER
THE
IMPUGNED
AMENDMENT
DEHUMANIZES
THE
CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS CONTENDED BY THE

PETITIONER?
a. Under the amendment it is friendly to make children criminals
Criminalizing children encourages them to spiral down into more and more violent offending.
Maintain primarily punitive, retributive system for children in conflict with the law prevents
societies moving on ; it upholds believes in original sins and need to beat the devil out of
children. The basic assertion is that we must disregard retribution all together and focus
exclusively on rehabilitation.
XIV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
PETITION OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has locus-standi to file the present petition under article
322of constitution of India. As the petition is filed by the petitioner against the rights of children
which has been infringed by the said amendment in, The Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of
children) Act, 2000. Children and childhood across the world, have broadly been construed in
terms of a golden age that is synonymous with innocence, freedom, joy, play and the like. It is
the time when, spared the rigours of adult life, one hardly shoulders any kind of responsibility or
obligations. Countrys children are countrys future as the strength of nation lies in a healthy,
protected, educated and well-developed child population that will grown up to the productive
citizen of the country3. But, then, it is also true that children are vulnerable, especially when very
young. Whether or not, the premise underlying this is correct or not, the childhood reality on
the whole is questionable, demanding critical evaluation4. Accordingly, idealistic notions and
representations associated with children and childhood have been challenged, especially in
relation to poverty, disease, exploitation and abuse rife across the globe. It is about the time that
we recognize this and take remedial measures for their protection. Lack of empirical evidence
and qualitative information on the dimensions of child delinquency and neglect makes it difficult
to address the issue in a comprehensive manner.
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.-(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.(2) The Supreme
Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part.(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1)
and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or
any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall
not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Ved Kumari: Reflection of human rights in probation and children acts-a pragmatic approach. (Crimnal law
journal, Vol. 1, 1984, p 897)
4
THAKER, Avani G: Juvenile delinquency: Is our legal system a panacea or epicenter of its perpetuation. (Gujarat
Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3, March 2008, p 19-23)
To adduce upon the issue of infringement of rights of children, petitioner have filed the petition
by the way of public interest litigation under the jurisprudence of article 325 of constitution
of Hindustan under which The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for
the enforcement of the rights conferred by this part6 is guaranteed.
1.1 Maintainability of public interest litigation
The Constitution of Hindustan emphasizes on the equal justice to all persons. The Public Interest
Litigation in Hindustan is comparatively a recent innovation of the judiciary, initiated primarily
to provide access to justice and equal justice to the disadvantaged Sections of the society who are
not possessed of adequate means or sufficient awareness to enforce their fundamental rights
guaranteed under the constitution. Republic of Hindustan which is parimateria with republic of
India every manner have congruence development of concept of PIL as till 1960 and seventies,
the concept of litigation in India was still in rudimentary form and was seen as a private pursuit
for the vindication of private vested interest. Litigation in early 1960 consisted mainly of some
action initiated and continued by certain individuals, usually, addressing their own grievances or
problems. Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of the injured
person or the aggrieved party. Even this was greatly limited by the resources available with those
individuals. There were very little organized efforts or attempts to take up wider issues that
affected classes of consumers or the general public at large. PIL emerged as an exceptional
weapon under the jurisprudence of Indian constitution paving the way for liberalized locus
standi, enable a social activist, individual or group of persons to bring to the Supreme Court
any issue of public interest wherein violation of any fundamental right is alleged, for its
protection by resort to constitutional remedy under article 327 of the constitution. This is the
underlying principle in Article 39A8of the constitution. The procedure for PIL is extension of the
principle on Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for representative action.
Ibid note 1
Part III of Constitution of Hindustan
7
Ibid note 1
8
39 A. Equal justice and free legal aid.-The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes
justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or
schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason
of economic or other disabilities.
6
Public Interest Litigation popularly known as PIL and can be broadly defined as litigation in the
interest of that nebulous entity: the public in general.
The concept of public interest litigation had its origin in the American legal system during the
period of 1960s. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in the
United States of America stated that Public Interest Law is the name, which was able to provide
legal representation to previously unrepresented groups
The seed of the Public Interest Litigation was initially sown in India by Justice Krishna Iyer in
1976 in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai9
further, the celebrated case of Fertilizer
Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India10, the terminology Public Interest Litigation
was used by Justice Iyer. In this particular judgment he used the expression Epistolary
Jurisdiction. The Honble Supreme Court held that the procedure had to be relaxed to meet the
ends of justice. During the last three decades the our judiciary has been playing a very creative
role in the administration of justice, which is the departure from the committed judiciary of the
past to the activist judiciary of today under the principle of public interest litigation that was
innovated by the Apex Court through judicial activism. With the advent of public interest
litigation this traditional strict rule of standing has been broadened and liberalized. As a result of
this any person acting bona fide having no personal gain or political motive can move the Court
alone for the enforcement of constitutional or legal rights of socially or economically
disadvantaged Sections of the immunity11. The cause of justice cannot be allowed to overlook on
the technical ground of Locus Standi or absence of personal loss or injury.12
The most important pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the field of public interest litigation
involving the question of Locus Standi is S. P. Gupta v. Union of India13, popularly known as
Judges Transfer Case.
AIR 1976 SC 1455

AIR 1981 SC 344
11
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdharv, AIR 1993 SC 892
12
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675
13
AIR 1982 SC 149
10
In this case the Locus Standi of the petitioners was challenged. Delivering the judgment the
Court held that, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
matter can maintain an application for appropriate directions or orders. The decision of this
case had made a far-reaching impact on the question of Locus Standi. Similarly, the Supreme
Court gave historic judgments in Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari (ABSK) Sangh v. Union
of India14, Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India15 and Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India16conferring standing to the petitioners. The court justified such
extension of standing in order to enforce rule of law and provide justice to disadvantaged
Sections of society17. Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that the term appropriate
proceedings in Art.32 of the Constitution18does not refer to the form but to the purpose of
proceeding: so long as the purpose of the proceeding is to enforce a FR, any form will do19. This
was achieved by both interpreting existing FRs widely and by creating new FRs. Article 21
no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by lawproved to be the most fertile provision to mean more than mere physical
existence20; it includes right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it.21Everwidening horizon of Art.21 is illustrated by the fact that the Court has read into it, inter alia, the
right to health22, livelihood23, free and compulsory education up to the age of 14 years24,
unpolluted environment25, shelter26, clean drinking water, privacy27, legal aid28, speedy trial29,
14
AIR 1981 SC 298

AIR 1982 SC 1473
16
AIR 1984 SC 802
15
17
Aharon Barak, Foreword: A Judge on Judging: The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy (2002) 116
Harvard Law Review 16, 107108.
18
Ibid note 3 (clause 1)
19
Shukla V.N.,Constitution of India, 11th Edition, Eastern Book Co pp.278279.
20
Kharak Singh v State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 ; Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corp AIR 1986 SC 180:;
Francis Coralie v Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746; Consumer Education & Research Centre v Union of
India, AIR 1995 SC 922; Bodhisattwa Gautam v Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922; Visakha v State of
Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011
21
Ibid
22
Vincent v. Union of India, AIR 1887 SC 990
23
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Muncipal Corp. AIR 1986 SC 180
24
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1
25
State of M.P. V.kedia Leather& Liquor Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 727
26
Supra 19
27
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295; Govind v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1378
and various rights of under-trials30, convicts and prisoners31. It is important to note that in a
majority of cases the judiciary relied upon DPs for such extension.
After 2 years 11 months and 18 Days of assiduous deliberation and incessant debate, the framers
of the Constitution created the sacrosanct Constitution of Hindustan. With an impermeable and
perpetual desire to serve the nation with the hope to establish a sovereign socialist secular32
democratic republic. Among others, the Constitution aims to secure to all its citizens justice
(social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship) and
equality (of status and of opportunity)33. The main tools employed to achieve such social change
were the provisions on fundamental rights (FRs) and the directive principles of state policy
(DPs), which Austin described as the conscience of the Constitution34. After initial
deviation,35 the Supreme Court accepted that FRs are not superior to DPs on account of the latter
being non-justifiable: rather FRs and DPs are complementary and the former are a means to
achieve the goals indicated in the latter36.The issue was put beyond any controversy in Minerva
Mills Ltd v. Union of India37 where the Court held that the, harmony and balance between
fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the
Constitution38 Since then the judiciary has employed DPs to derive the contents of various
FRs.39
Petitioners is a dedicated foundation working persistently for the rights of children, acting bona
fide as a social action group filing petition under episolatary jurisdiction challenging the
28
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369,1373

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 ; Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Naik, AIR 1992 SC 1701
30
Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535
31
Arvindar Singh Bagga v. State of U.P., AIR 1995 SC 117
32
The terms socialist and secular were inserted by the 42nd amendment in 1976.
33
These values are expressly declared in the Preamble and form the essence of the Indian Constitution, the Indian
Legal System and the Indian Polity.
34
Granville Austin, Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, p.50
35
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226.
36
CB Boarding & Lodging v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC 2042; Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR
1973 SC 1461; Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789; Unni Krishnan v. State of AP, (1993) 1
S.C.C. 645. Rajiv Dhavan, Republic of India: The Constitution as the Situs of Struggle: Indias Constitution Forty
Years On in Lawrence W. Beer (ed.), Constitutional Systems in Late Twentieth Century Asia (Seattle: University
of Washington Press, 1992), pp.373, 382383, 405 and 413416.
37
Supra note 34
38
Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India , AIR 1980 SC 1789, 1806.
39
Jain M.P., The Supreme Court and Fundamental Rights in Verma and Kusum 6th edition, Fifty Years of the
Supreme Court of India, pp.6576.
29
impugned amendment passed by our distinguished lawmakers but the said amendment
encroaches upon the fundamental rights of children which is apprehend below (1.2) :1.2 Encroachment upon basic human rights and constitutional ideals
The said amendment in JJCPA Act,2000 encroached upon the rights of children endowed upon
them by the constitution which are fundamental human rights guaranteed under article 1440 by
making a unreasonable class classification of children under the age-group of 16 to 18 years
indulge in delinquent activities, which have no nexus sought to be achieved, further article
15(3)41 obligates states to make special provisions for women and children, with the said
amendment state is making anti-provisions against the human rights of child treating him at par
with adult offender. Article 2142which empowers every human with fundamental right of life and
liberty with the core principle of natural justice is hampering rights of children, further the
constitutional ideals engraved under article 39(e)43, 39(f) 44and 4545are infringed by the state by
virtue of said amendment.
article 51(c)46 and article 25347which is vital for state in smooth relations with world bodies,
friendly relations with the state is hindered by said amendment as it infringes the rights of
children enshrined under international covenants of united nation convention on the rights of
40
Art. 14. Equality before law.-The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.
41
Art. 15(3). Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and
children.
42
Art. 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.
43
Art. 39(e). That the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused
and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
44
Art. 39(f). That children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material
abandonment
45
Art. 45. Provision for free and compulsory education for children.-The State shall endeavor to provide, within
a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all
children until they complete the age of fourteen years.
46
Art. 51(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one
another; and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.
47
Art. 253. Legislation for giving effect to international agreements.-Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing
provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India
for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at
any international conference, association or other body.
children48article (40)(1)49 and United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration
of Juvenile Justice(Beijing rules)50 article 1051,1152,1353 which particularly deals that a child
delinquent must get minimum punishment and punishment must be last resort. Our country has
ratified all the U.N guidelines in this regard and by making impugned amendment is infringing
all the established ideals.
Petitioner acting bona fide and ardent protector of rights of children. Childrens justice is to be
ensured by adults because they cannot lobby for themselves. The establishment of juvenile
justice system was a great achievement of the nineteen century to bring juvenile delinquents out
of the purview of criminal courts and safeguard then from the technicalities of criminal
48
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20
November 1989
49
States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal
law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which
reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account
the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role
in society.
50
adopted on 29 November 1985 by the United Nations General Assembly
51
Art. 10. Initial contact- 10.1 upon the apprehension of a juvenile, her or his parents or guardian shall be
immediately notified of such apprehension, and, where such immediate notification is not possible, the parents or
guardian shall be notified within the shortest. possible time thereafter. 10.2 A judge or other competent official or
body shall, without delay, con- side the issue of release. 10.3 Contacts between the law enforcement agencies and a
juvenile offender shall be managed in such a way as to respect the legal status of the juvenile, promote the wellbeing of the juvenile and avoid harm to her or him, with due regard to the circumstances of the case.
52
Art. 11. Diversion- 11.1 Consideration shall be given, wherever appropriate, to dealing with juvenile offenders
without resorting to formal trial by the competent authority, referred to in rule 14.1 below. 11.2 The police, the
prosecution or other agencies dealing with juvenile cases shall be empowered to dispose of such case at their
discretion, without in course to formal hearings, in accordance with the criteria laid down for that purpose in the
respective legal system and also in accordance with the principles contained in these Rules. 11.3 Any diversion
involving referral to appropriate community or other services shall require the consent of the juvenile, or her or his
parents or guardian, provided that such decision to refer a case shall be sub ject to review by a competent authority,
upon application. 11.4 In order to facilitate the discretion ary disposition of juvenile cases, efforts shall be made to
provide for community programmes, such as temporary supervision and guidance, restitution, and compensation of
victims.
53
Art. 13. Detention pending trial- 13.1 Detention pending trial shall be used only as a measure of last
Resort and for the shortest possible period of time. 13.2 Whenever possible, detention pending trial shall be
replaced alternative measures, such as close supervision, intensive care or placement with a family or in an
educational setting or home. 13.3 Juveniles under detention pending trial shall be entitled to all rights and
guarantees of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the United Nation 13.4
Juveniles under detention pending trial shall be kept separate from adults and shall be detained in a separate
institution or in a separate part of an institution also holding adults. 13.5 While in custody, juveniles shall receive
care, protection and all necessary individual assistance - social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and
physical - that they may require in view of their age, sex and personality.
procedure. It emerged as a measure of social defence towards juvenile .the petitioner

acknowledges this effort. But the said amendment is based on government desperation to change
the law on frivolous and popular sentiments and not on facts, it usurping several rights
arguendo.thus the petitioner have locus-standi to maintain the present petition.
2. WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER THAT THE
IMPUGNED AMENDMENT IS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS,
CONSTITUTIONAL IDEALS, CORE PRINCIPLES OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS LEGALLY TENABLE?
The greatest gift to humanity is the Children and Childhood is a significant and impressionable
phase of human development as it holds the potential to the future development of any society.
Children who are nurtured in an environment, which is conducive to their intellectual, physical
and social health, grow up to be responsible and productive members of society. Every nation
links its future with the present status of its children. It was wisely contended by Frankfurter, J.
in the case of May v. Anderson54 that, Children have a very special place in life which law
should reflect. Children, by definition, are not assumed to have the capacity to take care of
themselves. They are assumed to be subject to the control of their parents, and if parental control
falters, the State must play its part as parens patriae.55 The way in which children, who are
victims of the conditions in which they are living and children who have violated the law are
approached, treated, rehabilitated, disciplined and punished, is essentially a reflection of that
societys culture and value system. Keeping in view the inevitable part of society our country has
made various special laws pertaining to the delinquency of juveniles.
The essence of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2000, and the Rules
framed there under in 2007, is restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and reintegration of children in conflict with law into mainstream society. The age of eighteen has been
fixed on account of the understanding of experts in child psychology and behavioral patterns that
54
55
345 U.S. 528, 536, 73 S.Ct. 840, 844, 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953)
Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 265, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 2410, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984)
till such an age the children in conflict with law could still be redeemed and restored to
mainstream society, instead of becoming hardened criminals in future.56
The petitioner humbly submits before the Honble court that the impugned amendment is against
the international covenants, constitutional ideals, core principles of juvenile justice and
established judicial precedents.
2.1 It violates the international covenants
The counsel humbly submits before this Honble court that the amendment for lowering down
the age of juveniles from 18 years to 16 years in the heinous cases is against the various
international covenants for child rights that are being laid down to put forward various guidelines
for securing and promoting the interests and rights of the children.
The preamble of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 195957 points out:
..the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care,
including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth, and that mankind owes to
the child the best it has to give.
Our country has been signatory to and ratified many of the International Conventions relating to
child rights. Hence, it is unions international obligation to incorporate the mandatory principles
embodied therein, in our domestic/municipal law.
The important international instruments which proved a landmark in the development of Juvenile
justice system in the country are as follows:
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959.58
The UN Convention on the rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989.59
The United Nations Standard Minimum rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice
(The Beijing rules) 1989,60
56
Salil Bali v Union of India and Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3743

Adopted by UN general assembly on 20 Nov 1959
58
Proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 1386(XIV) of 20 November 1959.
59
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20
November 1989 entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49
57
The United Nations rules for the protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty,
1990.61
The United Nations Guidelines for the prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh
guidelines), 1990.62
The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of intercountry Adoption, 1993.63
The United Nations guidelines for Action on Children in the Criminal justice System,
1997.64
The United Nations committee on the Rights of the Child; general comments on
Childrens Rights in Juvenile Justice, 2007.65
The following sets of Rules intended that social policies should be evolved and applied to
prevent juvenile delinquency, to establish a Juvenile Justice System for juveniles in conflict with
law, to protect and safeguard fundamental rights and to establish methods for social reintegration of young people who had suffered incarceration in prison or other corrective
institutions.
Article 37 (c) of the UN Convention on Rights of the Child (CRC), 198966 says Every child
deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the
human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age.
In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered
in the child's best interest not to do so
General Comment No. 10, issued by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 200767,
titled Childrens rights on juvenile justice recommends the applicability of juvenile justice
60
Often referred to as the Beijing Rules, is a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly regarding the
treatment of juvenile prisoners and offenders in member nations, was adopted on 29 November 1985 by the United
Nations General Assembly
61
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990
62
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 45/112 of 14 December 1990
63
Concluded on May 29, 1993 in The Hague, the Netherlands
64
Recommended by Economic and Social Council resolution 1997/30 of 21 July 1997
65
Supra 66
66
The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature on 20 November 1989. It came
into force on 2 September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations
67
U.N COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD ,Forty-fourth session Geneva, 15 January-2 February
2007
10
system for all children who, at the time of commission of an offence [or act punishable under
the criminal law], have not yet reached the age of 18 years(Para 36). It further recommends that
those States parties which limit the applicability of their juvenile justice rules to children under
the age of 16 [or lower] years, or which allow by way of exception that 16 or 17-year-old
children are treated as adult criminals, change their laws with a view to achieving a nondiscriminatory full application of their juvenile justice rules to all persons under the age of 18
years. The Committee notes with appreciation that some States Parties allow for the application
of the rules and regulations of juvenile justice to persons aged 18 and older, usually till the age of
21, either as a general rule or by way of exception (Para 38).
Article 3 (1) of the CRC68 says, In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by
public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative
bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
The Apex court in the case of Githa Hariharan & Anor v. Reserve Bank of India & Another69
has contended that domestic courts are under an obligation to give due regard to international
conventions and norms for construing domestic laws when there is no inconsistency between
them.
Therefore, the impugned amendment is clearly against the international covenants which were
crafted in order to preserve the dignity and reformation of the juveniles.
2.2 It violates constitutional ideals
Bhagwati, CJ, has rightly observed in the case of Lakshmi Kanth Pandey v. Union of India70: The child is a soul with a being, a nature and capacities of its own, who must be helped to find
them, to grow into their maturity, into fullness of physical and vital energy and the utmost
breadth, depth and height of its emotional, intellectual and spiritual being; otherwise there cannot
be a healthy growth of the nation. Now obviously children need special protection because of
their tender age and physique mental immaturity and incapacity to look after themselves. That is
why there is a growing realization in every part of the globe that children must be brought up in
68 Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20
November 1989
69
AIR 1999 SC 1149
70
AIR 1984 SC 469
11
an atmosphere of love and affection.In India this consciousness is reflected in the provisions
enacted in the Constitution.
Our Constitution recognizes that children are very precious for the nation as well as its rapid
growth. The fact that the welfare of countrys children was an important object in the minds of
the framers of the Constitution is reflected in its provisions. Part III is considered the core of the
Constitution as it encompasses the Fundamental rights which are granted to the individuals in
order to protect and promote the rights and interests of an individual. Accordingly, part III
confers various special rights pertaining to the children. Article 1471 is a basic feature of
Constitution and any treatment of equals unequally will be violation of basic structure of the
Constitution of Hindustan.72 Under the impugned amendment the children with conflict in law
are treated unequally by creating a sub-class classification under the already existing reasonable
classification. By the way of this impugned amendment no reasonable nexus is sought to be
achieved by the lawmakers.73 A very fascinating aspect of Art. 14 which the courts have
developed over a time are that it embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness on the part of
executive and legislature. As the Supreme Court has observed in Royappa:74 from a positivistic
point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. The said impugned amendment is totally
based on the whims and wishes of the legislature without taking into consideration the other
aspects of society. Art. 15(3)75 of the Constitution enables the government to make special
provisions for the protection of women and children. The JJ Act 2000 which was enacted by the
legislature was also in congruence with the provisions of Art. 15(3) and the petitioner applauds
this very effort but the impugned amendment is clearly violative of the rights of the children.
Article 2176 of the Constitution grants inalienable right of life and personal liberty and the courts
subsequently have given a wider interpretation to this article. By the term life as here used,
71
Equality Before Law- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws within the territory of India.
72
M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 260
73
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130
74
E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555; Bachan Singh V State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325;; A.
L. Kalra v. P & E Corp. Of India ltd. , AIR 1987 SC 1361, 1367; Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor
Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101; Mahesh Chandra v, Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corp., AIR 1993 SC 935
75
Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
76
Protection of life and personal liberty- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.
12
something more is meant than mere animal existence.77 Therefore, accordingly the dignity of
juveniles should also be considered in the light of the above mentioned Article as it was
reiterated in the landmark judgment, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,78 The right to
live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive
Principles and particularly clauses (e) & (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 respectively.
Article 21A79 of the Constitution mentions the States duty to provide free and compulsory
education to the children upto the age of 14 years. The honble apex court has observed that,
The word life in the context of article 21 of the Constitution has been found to include
education and accordingly this Court has implied that right to education is in fact a
fundamental right.80 Article 2381 does not specifically mentions the children, yet it is applied to
them and is more relevant in their context because children are the most vulnerable sections of
the society. It is a known fact that many children are exploited because of their poverty. They are
deprived of education, made to do all sorts of work injurious to their health and personality in
order to make their both ends meet. Art. 24 expressly provides that no child below the age of 14
years shall be made to do work in any factory or mine or engaged in any hazardous employment.
The Supreme Court in 1997, while considering the plight of bonded and child labour in the
judgment of Bandhua Mukti Morcha etc. v. UOI & Ors82 observed that, If children are
deprived of their childhood - socially, economically, physically and mentally-the nation gets
deprived of the potential human resources for social progress, economic empowerment and
peace and order, the social stability and good citizenry. The founding fathers of the constitution,
therefore, have emphasized the importance of the role of the child in its best for development.
Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who was far ahead of his time in his wisdom projected these rights in
the Directive Principles including the children as beneficiaries. Their deprivation has deleterious
effect on the efficacy of the democracy and the role of law. Provisions of Art. 39(e), 39(f), 45 &
47 also specify the various special provisions in lieu of the children. In Satto v. State of U.P.,83
77
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877); Fracis Coralie v.
Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746
78
AIR 1984 SC 802
79
Ins. By the Constitution(Eighty-sixth amendment) Act, 2002, sec 2(w.e.f 1-4-2010)
80
Childline India Foundation & Anr. V. Allan John Waters & Ors, (2011) 6 SCC 261.
81
Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour
82
AIR 1997 SC 2218
83
AIR 1979 SC 1519
13
Justice V R Krishna Iyer, observed: Juvenile justice has constitutional roots in Arts. 15(3) and
39(e) and the pervasive humanism which bespeaks the superparental concern of the State for its
child citizens including juvenile delinquents.
Therefore in the light of the above stated provisions it can be observed that the impugned
amendment is infringing upon the Constitutional ideals laid down for the children.
2.3 It violates core principles of juvenile justice and established precedents

The main objective of the Juvenile Justice Act is to save young offenders from getting sucked
into the criminal justice system so early on in life and to allow them to reform. However, such
amendment would not only defeat the very aim but also not allow the offender to recover from
the punishment leaving his future in the dark. Juvenile offenders are allowed some leeway on
account of the fact that they may be immature and not fully capable of understanding the
consequences of their actions. The very scheme of the aforesaid Act is rehabilitatory in nature
and not adversarial which the courts are generally used to.84 In a leading case of U.S it has been
observed that, Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound
judgments concerning many decisions.85 Juveniles are less responsible for their acts than
adults because they are less mature in their ability to make sound judgments and less mature
in terms of their moral development . . . and are less able to control their conduct and to
recognize the consequences of their acts than are adults.86 There are three reasons justifying the
conclusion that the constitutional rights of children cannot be equated with those of adults: the
particular vulnerability of children, their inability to make critical decisions in an informed,
mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing.87
84
Hari Ram v State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211

Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 603, 99 S.Ct.2493, 2505, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979)
86
Helene B. Greenwald, Capital Punishment for Minors: An Eight Amendment Analysis, 74 J. Crim. L. &
Criminology 1471 (1983)
87
Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. at 634;
85
14
In a well laid down judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roper v. Simmons88, the
Supreme Court expanded Thompson89, and held that the Eighth Amendment90 prohibits
sentencing any juvenile younger than 18 years old at the time of the offense to death. The court
reasoned that the differences between juveniles and adults render suspect any conclusion that a
juvenile falls among the worst offenders. The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and
irresponsible behavior means their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that
of an adult. Similarly, in a No. of cases the Supreme Court has successfully entertained the plea
of juvenility91 and given the decision abiding by the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000.
The shift away from rehabilitation diminishes the juvenile justice system's ability to enable
juvenile offenders to take responsibility for them and to protect them as victims of an imperfect
society.

LOWERING OF THE AGE OF JUVENILES IN THE LIGHT OF SURVEY FINDINGS
AND EARLY PRECOCITY OF CHILD IS LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE?
The petitioner humbly submits that lowering the age of juveniles under the impugned
amendment is regressive and incompatible with the rehabilitative foundation of juvenile justice
and violates the right to equality.
We urge the lawmakers to get smart and not get tough on juveniles in conflict with law, as a
retributive approach to juvenile crime is internationally recognized as being counterproductive.
In fact, in jurisdictions where this has been done, juveniles have been exposed to hardened
criminals and have ended up graduating as repeat offenders themselves, thereby producing the
exact opposite outcome from what was envisaged. We strongly believe that the JJ system needs
88
543 U.S. 551 (2005)

Thompson v Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988)
90
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
91
Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B., AIR 2013 SC 1020; Ajahar Ali v State of W. B., AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 18; Gopi
Nath Ghosh v State of W. B., AIR 1984 SC 237
89
15
to balance the need for accountability to the victim and community, and the need to ensure
public safety with the need to ensure that the system addresses the developmental needs of the
juvenile to heal and mature into responsible contributing individuals.
Dealing with children is prefaced by Nelson Mandelas quote - "There can be no keener
revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children". Treating children
alleged to have committed serious crimes as irredeemable criminals, and transferring them to
the adult system contradicts the
stated commitment of our policymakers to Lay special
emphasis on vulnerable children and especially those belonging to the vulnerable communities
like SCs, STs, OBCs, migrants, slum dwellers, street dwellers and those with disabilities as
nearly 53% of juveniles in conflict with law come from families with an annual income of less
than Rs 25,000 and illiterate children and those with education up to primary level constitute
51.9% of the juvenile population92.Juveniles alleged or found to have committed a crime,
(whether serious or not) are vulnerable and not only deserve to be treated in a manner that
should make this nation proud, they are entitled to be dealt with in accordance with the vision of
the Preamble of the JJ Act 2000- i.e., proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their
developmental needs, and by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and
disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation. The
aforementioned provisions should therefore not be retained in the said impugned amendment for
the following reasons:
3.1 Scientific studies on the adolescent brain and psychology contradict public assumptions
of maturity
The proposed provisions assume that juveniles who have engaged in crimes such as rape and
murder are more mature. This assumption is prevalent in the public and is totally contradicted by
science. Neuroscientists now confirm that the pre-frontal cortex, which is responsible for
important functions such as planning, reasoning, judgment, and impulse control, is the slowest to
mature, a process that completes at the age of 25. Our present science establishes that younger
92
National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India, 2013, Chapter 10, p.138.
16
people engage in risky behavior precisely because of an underdeveloped brain. By that yardstick,
making the argument of maturity based on the nature of crime does not stand scrutiny. 93
Findings in neuroscience and adolescent psychology confirm that juveniles are more susceptible
to negative influences and peer pressure, are less likely to focus on future outcomes, are less riskaverse than adults, have poor impulse control, and evaluate risks and benefits differently all of
which pre-dispose them to make poor decisions.94 The part of the brain that helps in organizing,
planning and strategizing is not developed in teen years and therefore it is unfair to expect them
to have adult levels of organizational skills or decision making before their brain is finished
being built95 These studies also confirm that adolescence is a transient phase and that most
young people grow out of delinquency on their own as their brains mature if they are spared
the trauma and lasting stigma of juvenile incarceration.96
Our clinical experience shows that, offending in juveniles is more likely to happen in a context
of absence of positive adult supervision - particularly the absence of care and protection,
circumstances of neglect, exploitation and abuse, and the child having been socialized in a way
where his/her decision making goes awry, rather than in a context of premeditation and
criminality. The States response to juvenile crime has to take into account the complex psychosocial circumstances of the child, as it interacts in a significant way with the immature adolescent
neurobiology and behavior.
Further, the discretion if accorded to JJBs is problematic because according to scientific studies,
a precise determination of a juveniles psychosocial maturity is not possible, as practitioners
lack diagnostic tools to evaluate psychosocial maturity and identity formation on an
93
Elizabeth Cauffman and Laurence Steinberg, (Im)maturity of Judgment in Adolescence: Why Adolescents May
Be Less Culpable Than Adults,Behav. Sci. Law 18: 741 at742-743 (2000)
94
Elizabeth S. Scott and Laurence Steinberg, Adolescent Development and the Regulation of Youth Crime, The
Future of Children, VOL. 18 NO. 2, FALL 2008, p.15 at 20-21
95
PBS Frontline, Inside the Teenage Brain, Interview with Jay Giedd. Available at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/interviews/giedd.html last accessed on 30/01/2015
96
NELL BERNSTEIN, BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE: THE END OF JUVENILE PRISON, 2014, p. 207.
17
individualized basis and because evaluating antisocial traits and conduct in adolescence is just
too uncertain.97
The assumptions in the Bill relating to transfer, are therefore untenable, as adolescence is in itself
considered a mitigating factor, such that all persons below the age of 18 years in this
developmental stage must be treated as juveniles without exception.
3.2 The proposed provisions violate the constitutional right to equality and right to life
Indias constitutional right to equality is about ensuring fairness. We have already established
that juveniles brains are still developing and their culpability is reduced. To penalize juveniles
as adults would violate the fundamental principle of equality, as juveniles do not neurobiologically possess the capacity for decision making and impulse control as adults, and are
therefore not on an equal footing when treated as adults.
The adversarial adult criminal justice system is very inappropriate for juveniles in conflict with
law as they lack the capacity to participate in trials like adults.
98
The findings of a juvenile
competence study undertaken by the MacArthur Foundation, USA reveals that: adolescents are
more likely than young adults to make choices that reflect a propensity to comply with authority
figures, such as confessing to the police rather than remaining silent or accepting a prosecutor's
offer of a plea agreement. In addition, they are less likely to recognize the risks inherent in the
various choices they face or to consider the long-term, and not merely the immediate,
consequences of their legal decisions.99 Transfer of some juveniles to the adult system will
severely undermine procedural fairness and offend their constitutional right to life and personal
liberty. A study in the US revealed that, compared to those held in juvenile detention centers,
97
Elizabeth S. Scott and Laurence Steinberg, Adolescent Development and the Regulation of Youth Crime, The
Future of Children, VOL. 18 NO. 2, FALL 2008, p.15 at 24-25
98
Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court An Assessment of Trends and Consequences
Malcolm C. Young and Jenni Gainsborough, p.7, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/juvenile.pdf last accessed on
4/02/2015
99
Mac Arthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development & Juvenile Justice, MacArthur Juvenile
Competence Study Results, http://www.adjj.org/content/related_resources.php?cat_id=2&page_id=2 This study
was conducted between mid-2001 and March 2002 where 1412 subjects ranging from the age of 11 years to 24 years
were considered as sample space.
18
youth held in adult jails are: 7.7 times more likely to commit suicide, 5 times more likely to be
sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, 50% more likely to be attacked with a
weapon100 The constitutional obligation of protection of all children from abuse and
exploitation will also be frustrated if our country replicates the failed US model.
3.3 The proposed provisions in impugned amendment violate the rights and
fundamental principles enshrined in the act itself
The objective of the impugned amendment in regard with the existing act is to cater to the
developmental needs of children in conflict with law through proper care, protection and
treatment and by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of
matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation. Creating a subclass within class itself as if age group of child between 16-18 years committing heinous crime
will treat as par with adult offender, the said is definitely not in the best interest of a juvenile and
nor is it child-friendly. Worse, it will result in the denial of treatment and developmentally
appropriate care and protection and actually propel their ultimate banishment from the
community. Transfer of juveniles to the adult system will also deprive them of the right to
privacy as well as the right to bail and offend the principles of presumption of innocence, fresh
start, dignity and worth, safety, positive measures, non-waiver of rights, non-stigmatizing
semantics, equality and non-discrimination, and institutionalization as a measure of last resort,
all of which are fundamental to the understanding, interpretation, implementation, and
application of the said amendment.
3.4 The transfer system has failed to prevent recidivism or promote public safety
The transfer system in impugned amendment has been in existence in the US for over two
decades. Multiple studies in the US conclude that it has in fact been ineffective in addressing
juvenile crime rate, public safety, and recidivism. The independent Task Force on
Community Preventive Services set up by the US Centre for Disease Control reviewed
published scientific evidence on the effectiveness of waiver laws to ascertain whether this
prevented or reduced violence among those transferred, and among juveniles on the whole.
100
Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court An Assessment of Trends and Consequences Malcolm C. Young and Jenni
Gainsborough, p. 6, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/juvenile.pdf last accessed on 8/02/2015
19
Based on a review of nine studies on the specific and general deterrence effect of transfer
laws, the Task Force concluded that: .transfer policies have generally resulted in
increased arrest for subsequent crimes, including violent crime, among juveniles who
were transferred compared with those retained in the juvenile justice system. To the
extent that transfer policies are implemented to reduce violent or other criminal
behavior, available evidence indicates that they do more harm than good.101 Studies
have found that young people transferred to the adult criminal justice system have
approximately 34% more re-arrests for felony crimes than youth retained in the youth justice
system.102 Around 80% of youth released from adult prisons reoffend often going on to
commit more serious crimes.103
Recent scientific findings on the maturity of the adolescent brain has led to a shift even in USA
towards less punitive methods of dealing with juvenile crime since 2009, at least 20 states
have closed or downsized youth facilities or reduced their reliance on incarceration. In many
places, the money saved is being redirected to programs that supervise and treat youths in their
communities. States that reduced juvenile confinement most dramatically also saw the greatest
decline in juvenile arrests for violent crimes.104 In December 2012, the Attorney Generals
National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence, December 2012 recommended that No
juvenile offender should be viewed or treated as an adult. Laws and regulations prosecuting them
as adults in adult courts, incarcerating them as adults, and sentencing them to harsh punishments
that ignore and diminish their capacity to grow must be replaced or abandoned.
101
Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice
System: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, Centre for Disease
Control and Prevention, MMWR 2007, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm
102
Raise the Age NY, Get the facts (2013): http://raisetheageny.com/get-the-facts; Effects on Violence of Laws and
Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice System: Report on
Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, January 30, 2015, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm
103
Raise the Age NY, Get the facts (2013): http://raisetheageny.com/get-the-facts, National Campaign to Reform
State Juvenile Justice Systems. The Fourth Wave: Juvenile Justice Reforms for the Twenty-First Century; p. 20.
http://www.publicinterestprojects.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/JJ-Whitepaper- Design-Full-Final.pdf.
104
Giudi Weiss, The Fourth Wave Juvenile Justice Reforms for the Twenty-First Century, Winter 2013, p.4,
Commissioned by the National Campaign to Reform State Juvenile Justice Systems for the Juvenile Justice Funders
Collaborative. Available at: http://raisetheageny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/The-Fourth-Wave.pdf
20
Evidence on the failure of the transfer system is compelling and there is no reason why
Hindustan should replicate a failed system that has been more deleterious than progressive. In
Hindustan, juveniles in conflict with law alleged to have commit serious offences constitute a
miniscule105 but very vulnerable population that requires to be handled with much more
specialized care and caution so as to prevent recidivism, and in order to engineer reform and reintegration.
The impugned amendment represents a failed western experiment of retributive justice. We
need to modernize, not westernize.
Our current model of juvenile justice has failed us because it does not go the distance in healing
broken spirits. The victim has little or no say in the adult criminal justice system and the
proposed provisions do not advance their interests. . The JJ system has the potential to provide an
enabling framework to promote healing for the victim and the juvenile through restorative justice
programs. Restorative justice processes have been in vogue in New Zealand, Australia, South
Africa, Canada, USA, and several European countries. Experts who have studied various models
of restorative justice have recommended that it be adopted to address the more serious offences.
It is here that the impact of the offending on victims is greatest and that victims are most in need
of closure... and consider it most appropriate for repeat offenders.106
Evidence shows that programs offering counseling and treatment typically reduce
recidivism, while those focused on coercion and control tend to produce negative or null
effects. Programs tend to succeed when they address specific risk factors known to influence
delinquent and criminal behavior. These risk factors include anger and anti-social feelings, lack
of self-control, lack of affection or weak supervision from parents, lack of role models, and poor
academic skills.107 The most important conclusion of the Pathways to Desistance Study was that
even adolescents who have committed serious offenses are not necessarily on track for
adult criminal careers. Our clinical experience also endorses this. We therefore believe that
105
National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India, 2013, Chapter 10.

Allison Morris & Gabrielle Maxwell, Implementing Restorative Justice: What Works? in MORRIS &
MAXWELL, ED., RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR JUVENILES CONFERENCING, MEDIATION AND CIRCLES, 2001, p.268.
107
Richard A. Mendel, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, Annie E. Casey
Foundation, 2011, p.16, available
http://www.aecf.org/OurWork/JuvenileJustice/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Juvenile%20Justice/Detention%20Reform/NoP
laceForKids/JJ_NoPlaceForKids_Full.pdf.last accessed on 08/02/2015
106
21
offending behavior in juveniles cannot be attributed to unchanging personality traits so as to

justify certain juveniles as being incapable of reform.
4. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT DEHUMANIZES THE CRIMINAL
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS CONTENDED BY THE PETITIONER?
The State cannot take away childhood, before it creates a protective environment for its
children.
Responsibility is not a negative concept and it has to be investigated and acknowledged.
Petitioner believes that the concepts of responsibility and of criminalization need to be
separated. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) proposes a separate, distinct system
of juvenile justice; it requires that this must be focused on respect for all the rights of the child
and on the aims of rehabilitation and reintegration. This focus and these aims are not compatible
with criminalizing child offenders.
We do believe that children should be held responsible for their actions in line with the concept
of evolving capacities and our strong advocacy for respect for childrens views in all aspects of
their lives. It is essential to establish responsibility for crimes. Where responsibility is disputed,
there has to be a formal process to determine responsibility in a manner which respects the rights
of the alleged offender. But this process does not have to lead to criminalizing children108.
4.1 Its not friendly to make children criminals
Criminalizing children encourages them to spiral down into more and more violent offending:
there is plenty of evidence of that, but it certainly needs collecting together and disseminating
ever more effectively. Maintaining primarily punitive, retributive systems for children in conflict
with the law prevents societies moving on; it upholds beliefs in original sin and the need to beat
the devil out of children. And it reflects another primitive emotion fear and hatred of the next
generation, holding them absurdly to blame for current ills109. The basic assertion: that we must
108
Ved Kumari : Quagmire of age issues under the juvenile justice act: From inclusion to exclusion. (Journal of the
Indian Law Institute, Vol. 51, No. 2, April June 2009, p 163)
109
SARAN, KARTIKEYA: Juvenile justice : Protecting the Child in need of care and protection(Criminal Law
Journal, Vol. 114, October 2008, p 277- 83)
22
separate responsibility from criminalization, discard retribution altogether and focus

exclusively on rehabilitation has attracted strong and authoritative support110.Even the petition
submitted by Subramanian Swamy111 to consider the mental and intellectual maturity of
juveniles rather than the age when they are involved in various heinous crime were dismissed. To
understand the extent of mitigating circumstances it is mandatory that the child is evaluated from
a psychosocial standpoint with an aim towards reformation and rehabilitation within the existing
JJ system instead of retribution112. There are identified risk factors for development of
delinquency, which are identified at individual, social and community levels. These risk factors
include aggression, either modeled or inherent due to psychiatric morbidity (already established
to be prevalent and not attended to in the juvenile population), poor parental supervision and
parental conflict with harsh disciplining, crime ridden environments, and so on113.
4.2 Need of Patriarchy for Juveniles:
Before putting in force the impugned amendment, our lawmakers must take into consideration
the following prudent facts. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, in 2012114, only
1.2 per cent of all Indian Penal Code crimes were committed by juveniles. Only 4.2 per cent of
all crimes committed by juveniles were rape and only 3.5 per cent of all rapes were
committed by juveniles. Despite ART. 39 of the Constitution directing that children should be
given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner in conditions of freedom and
dignity, and that childhood and youth be protected against exploitation, and moral and material
abandonment, Indias children are subject to great violence. In a national study on child abuse in
2007115, the Ministry of Women and Child Development found that two out of every three
children had been physically abused and most children did not report the matter to anyone; 53.22
per cent of children reported having faced one or more forms of sexual abuse; 50 per cent of
cases of abuse are by persons known to the child or in a position of trust and responsibility.
110
REDDY, S SRINIVAS: Juvenile justice: Not a childs play. (Andhra Law Times, Vol. 6, No. 156, 2008, p 28-32)
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy and ors. v. Raju,through Member Juvenile Justice Board and Another (2014) 8 SCC
390: 2014 Indlaw SC 246
112
REDDY, S SRINIVAS: Juvenile justice: Not a childs play. (Andhra Law Times, Vol. 6, No. 156, 2008, p 28-32)
113
PANDA, B P : Rights of child juvenile delinquency and administration of justice. (Supreme Court Journal, Vol.
1, Part 2, Feb 1996, p 31)
114
NCRB ,Report On Crime, Chapter 10,2013
115
Study on Child Abuse: INDIA 2007, Ministry of Women and Child Development
111
23
4.2.1 Juvenile homes have problems:

The systems to safeguard children in Hindustan are still severely lacking. It has been three years
since the government enacted ICPS, which aims to set in place child protection services in every
district of the country. Preliminary feedback indicates that the scheme is hugely under-resourced,
and already lagging in its implementation. An example of this is the shaky condition of juvenile
justice homes (funded under the ICPS) whose primary task it is to work on reforming young
minds. Most juvenile homes today are fraught with problems which include poor infrastructure,
unskilled personnel, and a lack of specialized professionals like psychiatrists, psychologists,
therapists and counselors116
4.2.2 Impact of mitigating economic and social factors
Research on risk factors for delinquency has revealed that there are buffers between these risk
factors and the development of delinquency. These buffers act as protective factors and
include some changeable factors like warm supportive relationships, monitoring, recognition
for involvement in conventional activities, friends who engage in conventional positive behavior
and so on117. It is, therefore, imperative that the State comes up with a legislative framework that
includes a care plan which is in tandem with the normative tasks of adolescent development
with opportunities for self-reflection, self-development, behavior modification, healthy
socialization, vocational development to name a few, while ensuring a robust intervention along
with monitoring, review and subsequent care plans instead of deeming juveniles as recalcitrant
and incarcerating them into adult jails.
Sending juveniles who allegedly commit serious crime to jail is not in the interest of children,
families or the wider community as a whole. Such a policy change will result in higher costs
related to incarceration, and deferred costs that will incur as an outcome from the rage and
bitterness that comes from life in the adult criminal justice system118. The State needs to first
116
CHOUDHARY, D P : Promoting co-ordination within the implementation of juvenile justice act: Problems and
remedies. (Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 110, Part 1256, August 2004, p J225) (SCJL)
117
BURROW, John: Reverse waiver and the effects of legal, statutory and secondary legal factors on sentencing
outcomes for juvenile offenders. (Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 54, No. 1, Jan 2008, p 34) (NHRC)
118
Peter Newell, Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, A panel discussion organized by the
Child Rights International Network at the World Congress on Juvenile Justice, Geneva, January 28,2015
24
own its responsibility for the failure of the JJ system, particularly absence of
functional
assessment, probation and counseling services for juveniles, and the lack of anything special or
scientific about the Special Homes mandated to provide special correctional services in order to
achieve the rehabilitative goals of the law, and prevent recidivism.
The JJ Bill needs to make it mandatory for states to develop and implement empirically validated
correctional programmes designed to effectively address the developmental needs of children in
conflict with law - programmes that consistently demonstrate the fact that even children who
commit serious crime can be reformed. Customized, scientifically designed developmental,
therapeutic, skill-building and employment oriented educational programs, life skills focused,
restorative justice approaches (not merely restricted to compensation and reparation to victims),
community service, and effective mentoring and probation services are more effective in
promoting accountability and reducing recidivism.
Thus, the progressive features of the JJ system should therefore not be replaced by regressive
positions adopted in the West, particularly given the absence of empirical evidence to prove that
such a policy change is warranted or that it will even work. We also strongly urge the
government to embrace restorative justice, strengthen the existing system and invest in
correctional programs that have demonstrated effectiveness.
25
SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE COURT

Wherefore in the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Petitioner humbly
submits that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
TO HOLD
1. That the petition is maintainable.

2. That the said amendment in JJ (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 is impugned
and unconstitutional as it violates the very spirit of international covenants,

Constitutional ideals and other established precedents .
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience .
For This Act of Kindness, the Petitioner Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.
Sd/(Counsel for the petitioner)
XV

Petitioner (Craf)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner (Craf)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM C

SMT. VELAGAPUDI DURGAMBA SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF

THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF

WRIT PETITION NO: ____/ 2015

THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN

MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

All India Report

National Crime Rate Bureau

National Human Rights Commission

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

Art. L. Kalra V. P & E Corp. Of India Ltd.

AIR 1987 SC 1361, 1367

AIR 1995 SC 117

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

443 U.S. at 634

AIR 1995 SC 922

AIR 1981 SC 746:

(2014) 8 SCC 390

AIR 1983 SC 130

AIR 1974 SC 555

AIR 1981 SC 746

Govind v. State Of M.P

AIR 1984 SC 237

Hari Ram v. State Of Rajasthan,

(2009) 13 SCC 211

Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdharv

AI.R 1993 SC 892

Kartar Singh v. State Of Punjab

(1994) 3 SCC 569

AIR 1978 SC 597

Minerva Mills Ltd V. Union Of India

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union ART.I.R 1982 SC

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

RAHA, SWAGATA,Exploring community as a resource in the treatment of delinquency, Vol.

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

CASE CONCERNING THE AGE OF JUVENILE DELIQUENTS

CHILD RIGHTS ADVOCACY FOUNDATION

THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS-STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS

CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS CONTENDED BY THE

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS

CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS CONTENDED BY THE

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

further, the celebrated case of Fertilizer

AIR 1976 SC 1455

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

AIR 1981 SC 298

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369,1373

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

~MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER~

procedure. It emerged as a measure of social defence towards juvenile .the petitioner