Lily Sangeetha Nakka, School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Hosur Main Road, Bhavani Nagar, Post, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
ABSTRACT
The juvenile justice system in India has undergone significant changes which depicts the growth and development of the law. It started from the Children’s Act of 1920 which was replaced by the Juvenile Justice Act 1986 (JJ Act). When India joined the UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) on 11th December 1992, the same was amended in 2000 to align with the principles of the UNCRC. According to the UNCRC the definition of a child is any human being below the age of 18 years and the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 followed the same definition. In the 2015 Nirbhaya case there were 6 individuals (1 deceased, 4 adults and 1 minor) who committed the offense out of which the accused no. 1 was a minor (17.5 years old) and according to the law at that time only a sentence of 3 years was given to him. After the Nirbhaya case occurred there was a demand raised by the society to amend the said provision and significant changes were made to the Juvenile Justice Act, the 2000 Act was repealed and the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 was introduced. According to the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the definition of a child was unchanged but in case of a child in conflict with law being in between the ages of 16-18, has committed a heinous offense and it was held that he/she could be tried as an adult after clearance of psychological evaluation. The issue for consideration here is that by India being a part of the UNCRC, not amending the definition of a child without any wiggle room under Juvenile Justice Act 2015, but subjecting a child to adult treatment (for committing heinous crime), isn’t India violating the UNCRC and its own constitution under Article 253 of the Constitution of India?
Keywords: United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC); Child in conflict with the law; Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act); Article 253; Article 51(c); Nirbhaya case
Comments