The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection) Act, 2000- A

Critique Analysis
Though the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2000 is a good
piece of legislation serving the twin purpose of providing justice and providing
ways of rehabilitation to the Juveniles in Conflict with Law and Juvenile in need of
care and protection but it is not free from flaws and criticism. There are glaring
deficiencies both, in procedural as well as substantive portions which require
attention.
a) Usage of the word may:
A lot of the implementation part has been left up to the States by way of
the rules that the States may formulate. The usage of the word may as
far as the framing of rules by the States is concerned, is a major fallacy
because until and unless, the formulation of rules is not made mandatory,
the implementation of the Act will remain a dream. Sec. 8 of the Act is an
example of the abovementioned problem. According to Sec.8 (3) of the
Act, the State may formulate rules and standards for the observation
homes that are to be established. Leaving something as important as
maintenance of standards to the discretion of the State is a major problem
and should be made mandatory for the State to regulate such basic areas.
Even the appointment of inspection committees for the childrens homes
has been left to the discretion of the States and they may constitute such
committees according to Sec. 29. Something as important as after care
organizations, to check up on the juveniles who have left the special
homes and have been adopted or rehabilitated, has also been left to the
discretion of the States according to Sec.44.
b) Extension of period regarding inquiry:
Sec. 14[28]says that any inquiry regarding a juvenile, needs to be
completed within a period of four months unless there are some special
circumstances in special cases. There is absolutely no mention of what the
maximum period for inquiry should be and what may be the special
circumstances under which the period should be extended. This discretion
permits cases to languish in the system indefinitely. Sec. 14 gives a lot of
scope for arbitrariness and any lackadaisical attitude on behalf of the
juvenile justice board may be sought to be explained as the special
circumstances of the cases and hence, they have the option of getting
away with it. This is extremely dangerous for a juvenile, in whose case the
inquiry should be completed as soon as possible.
c) Adequate training for the officials dealing with juveniles:
No provisions have been provided in the Act regarding the specifications of
the special training of the officials who are supposed to deal with juvenile
offenders. Even though Sec. 63 provides for properly trained police unit, it
pays mere lip service to the requirement of special training because no

proper guidelines have been provided as to how the special training will be
given. Lack of properly trained officials defeats the entire purpose of the
Act.
d) Punishment for cruelty to a juvenile:
According to Sec. 23[29], a person responsible for cruelty to a juvenile will
be punished with
Imprisonment for a period of 6 months or with fine or with both. It is very
strange that at a time when the government is trying to curb the menace
of cruelty with juveniles, the punishment that they have prescribed is in no
way going to act as a deterrent to such erring individuals. The punishment
needs to be increased and also the fine amount needs to be specified so
that it may discourage the potential law breakers in this area.
e) The issue of Age of Juvenile:
Indian laws have created four categories of persons (who are accused of
committing any offence) on the basis of their age. The criminal liability of
a person, who has committed an offence, depends on the age-wise
category to which he belongs. This is explained as under:
(1) Below 7 years of age:
Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code declares that nothing is an offence
which is done by a child under seven years of age. Thus, irrespective of
what crime is committed by a child below seven years of age, he shall not
be liable for any punishment for such crime.
(2) Between the age of 7 years and 12 years:
Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code lays down as under:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age
and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on
that occasion.
Thus, if an offence is committed by a child who is above 7 years of age but
under 12 years of age, it will first have to be ascertained whether the child
has attained sufficient maturity of understanding due to which he can
judge the nature of his alleged conduct (i.e., the act of committing the
offence) and the consequences thereof.
Now, if such a child commits an offence and he did not have the sufficient
maturity of understanding the nature and consequences of his conduct, he
would not be liable for that offence. On the other hand, if he had the
sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences
of his conduct (leading to that offence), he shall be liable for that offence
in accordance with the provisions of law. However, even in such a case, he

shall not be prosecuted and punished like adult offenders. Such a child
committing an offence shall be dealt with only in accordance with the
provisions of the law relating to juvenile justice in India. Thus, even if such
a child is liable for action for the offence committed by him, he cannot be
imprisoned and he cannot be given death penalty.
(3) Between the age of 12 years and 18 years:
If an offence is committed by a person who is of the age of 12 years or
above but below the age of 18 years, he shall be liable for such offence.
However, he shall not be prosecuted and punished like adult offenders. He
shall be dealt with only in accordance with the provisions of the law
relating to juvenile justice in India. Thus, such a person also cannot be
imprisoned and he cannot be given death penalty.
(4) Of or above the age of 18 years:
If a person committing an offence has completed the age of 18 years or is
above the age of 18 years, he is criminally liable for such offence in
accordance with the normal criminal laws of the country.
In the light of Juvenile Justice Act: According to the Juvenile Justice act a child
or Juvenile is a person who is under 18 years of age. The act fails to punish
offenders who are under 18 years of age but have attained mental maturity and
are aware about the nature and circumstances of their act. The intention behind
the existence of the Act was to protect the juveniles because they were not
supposed to have the necessary mental element required to commit crimes. This
was the reason behind having milder laws and punishments to deal with juvenile
offenders. However, in the light of cases of crimes committed by maximum
amount of brutality by Juvenile it is very evident that the offenders had the
necessary knowledge and mental element regarding the commission of the
crime and the provisions of the Act have now turned out to be a shield to protect
them and provide them with lighter modes of punishment such as counseling or
being kept in a correction home for 3 years.
In the case of Kakoo vs State of A P, Kakoo named boy of 13 years of age had
committed rape on a small child of two years. He was convicted and sentenced
for four years rigorous imprisonment. When the case reached the apex court it
adopted humanitarian attitude and reduced the sentence to only one year
rigorous imprisonment. Justice Sarkaria observed that an inordinate long
imprisonment term is sure to turn a juvenile delinquent into obdurate criminal
and laid an emphasis that in case of child offenders current penological trends
command a more humanitarian approach.
Recently the Supreme Court while declining petitions seeking the lowering of the
age in the act from 18 to 16 years for juveniles and demanding that those
involved in heinous crimes should not be treated differently from other
offenders said:

The essence of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
and the rules framed there under in 2007, is restorative and not retributive,
providing for rehabilitation and re-integration of children in conflict with law into
the mainstream of society
It is probably better to try and re-integrate children with criminal propensities
into mainstream society, rather than to allow them to develop into hardened
criminals, which does not augur well for the future, the court said.
Need for the amendment of the JJ Act 2000 :
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data shows that there has been an
increase of offences committed by juveniles, especially in the age group of 1618. One of the perpetrators in the Delhi gang rape of 2012 was few months short
of 18 years age and he was tried as juvenile. He was sent to reformation home
for three years and was released in December 2015. This had raised the public
demand for lowering the age of juveniles under the act. The 2000 act was also
facing implementation issues particularly in cases of adoption.