Juvenile Delinquency
Juvenile Delinquency
Juvenile Delinquency
Abstract:
For more than six decades the Indian juvenile administration followed a
reformative and rehabilitative form of punishment for juvenile delinquent
and accepted the fact that 16 to 18 years is the most crucial and sensitive age
requiring greater protection. But the unfortunate, Nirbhaya incident reversed
the existing reformative oriented juvenile justice administration. Juvenile Jus-
tice Act, 2015 started a new era for juvenile justice administration in India by
introducing provision for transfer of 16 to 18 years old juvenile delinquent
alleged to have committed heinous offence to an adult criminal court. The
provision for transfer of the juvenile to adult criminal court to trail as the
adult and to punish like the adult is, directly and indirectly, inconsistent with
the basic objectives of juvenile justice system in India and CRC. The paper
focused on the various changes in traditional approach of juvenile justice law
and its effect in juvenile administration.
Introduction
Children are considered as the future asset of every nation, and it is the
moral obligation of every nation to ensure protection and healthy develop-
ment of the children. Juveniles should be permitted and provided opportu-
June 2019
46 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
nities to develop as good, law abiding citizens. In societies all over the world,
children are considered as the most vulnerable group, and most communities
keep children under the protection of their parents. Most often they are under
the circumscribing limit of their parent or any adult or any other authority.
Today’s children are tomorrow’s citizens. Therefore, the children who involve
in criminal or anti-social activity cause harm not only to him but also the
society as a whole.
Juvenile delinquents have always got a treatment and punishment separate
from adult offenders in most of the countries. This has resulted in a diver-
gence in response in case of violation of law by the children and immature
citizen. The reason for that is young people do not possess sufficient maturity
to understand the consequence of their acts, and it would be unjust to deal
them in the same manner as those who don’t have the similar disability.
Juvenile delinquency is one of the important parts of criminology. The
term delinquency is derived from the Latin word “delinquent” which means
to leave or abandon and the term “delinquent” originally indicated the chil-
dren who were neglected or abandoned by their parents. In the present sys-
tem, the term using to indicate the children involved in harmful, anti-social
or criminal activity. The term juvenile delinquent is defined as the child who
is alleged to have committed any offence which is punishable by the law of the
land and who has not attained the age in which an adult person is liable under
the law.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘the Act’,
hereinafter) is a beneficial legislation. The legislation is aimed at catering to
the children’s basic needs through providing the basic care, protection, de-
velopment, treatment and social reintegration by adopting a child-friendly
approach in the adjudication and the disposal of matter keeping in mind the
best interest of the children and for the rehabilitation through the process
provided and institution and bodies established. Before the establishment of
June 2019
48 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
Ancient India did not have a single organized system of prison. India was
ruled by the Muslim and Hindu rulers. During these periods the manner and
quality of administration was different. This divergence in the quality of ad-
ministration was clearly reflected in the administration and treatment of pris-
oners. Kingdoms ruled by the autocrat rulers were generally not concerned
about the welfare and protection of their subjects. The law breakers were im-
prisoned and punished for offences. They got harsh punishment even for petty
offences. During this period there was no segregation between the juvenile
offender and the adult one.
A milestone in the development of juvenile justice was the report of the
Committee on Prison Discipline published in 1834. The report demanded the
classification of prisoners according to antecedents and character. It further
recommended that classification among offenders should be applied to those
under trial. The first separate institution for the better treatment of juvenile
delinquents was established in 1838. The main objective of the institution was
the reformation of juvenile delinquent arrested by the police or any other au-
thority as well as the encouragement of the apprenticeship among the working
class. One of the important initiations on the part of British East India Com-
pany was the establishment of the reformatory school for the protection of
delinquent children. In 1843, due to the irrefutable demand from part of In-
dian people, Lord Cornwallis established a reformatory school at Bombay for
children who were orphan and neglected. The prime objective of the school
was giving a shelter to orphans as well as destitute children. It also aimed at
reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration of juveniles who engaged in an-
ti-social activity and committed crimes.
Another important landmark in the development of juvenile justice sys-
tem in India was the recommendations of the Indian Jail Committee in 1889
and 1919. The 1889 report investigated all aspects of Indian prisons, espe-
cially its administration. Some of the important recommendations given for
the improvement of Indian prison administration were: (a) establishment
of borstal schools in some parts of India for the reformation and correction
June 2019
50 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
3
The Bombay Jail Administration Report(1915-16 ), Bombay Prison Authority,1916,Gov-
ernment of India press minto Road, New Delhi
4
S.3 (1), Madras Children Act 1920.Child means a person under the age fourteen year age
and when used in reference to child sent to a certified school applied to that child during
whole period of detention notwithstanding that child attained the age fourteen years the
expirations of that period.
id. S.3 (2).Youth person means person who is fourteen years old or upward and under the
age sixteen year.
Id. S .3(3).The youth offender means any person whom has been convicted any offence
punishable with transportation or imprisonment and who at the time of such conviction
was under the age of sixteen.
Delhi Children Act, 1943.
Mysore Children Act, 1943.
The Travancore Children Act,1945.
The Cochin Children Act, 1946.
The Bombay Children Act, 1948.
A.P. Children Act,1920.
The Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951.
The Bengal Children Act, 1922.
June 2019
52 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
June 2019
54 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
tions are the part of the creation of child-friendly system. The child brought
before the board is entitled to get bail in both bailable and nonbailable offenc-
es; a board can only in exceptional circumstance refuse bail.
So it was the first uniform legislation for the treatment of juvenile delin-
quents. It faced a lot of criticisms from different parts of society. Firstly, it was
criticized as a mere replacement of the central Children Act, 1960 by exclud-
ing some terms, thereby containing nothing new. Some other criticisms relat-
ed to the definition of ‘juvenile’ and ‘neglected child’. The first problem related
to the age differentiation between boys and girls for application of the statute;
the next critique was that the definition of ‘neglected child’ was very narrow.
The need and demand for care and protection of juvenile delinquents, and a
separate body for dealing with them remained unanswered.
June 2019
56 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
June 2019
58 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
id. S. 4 (3).
Id. S.2 (w).”Juvenile Police Unite” means unite of police unites of police for handling of
juvenile or children under the section 63.
SidiqueAhemmed, criminology problem and perspective,44 (1st ed.,1990).
HenrichOppenhiemer, The rational and punishment,(1st ed.,1930),
June 2019
60 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
id. Art.10(3) 3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essen-
tial aim of which shall be their social reintegration and reformation. Juvenile delinquent
shall be separated from adult offenders and be accorded treatment appropriate to their
age, and legal status.
id. Art.14(4) 4. In the case of the juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take
account of their age and desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.
Art.37(a).UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989.Which is excludes child of-
fenders from the death penalty (B) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
1966 Article 6 (5), (C) African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (D) Amer-
ican Convention on Human Rights.No state party whose laws currently provide for the
death penalty against child offenders has entered a reservation to the relevant provision
of that treaty.
In the USA since 1995, two states, Indiana and Montana, have raised the minimum
age for the imposition of the death penalty to 18 at the time of the offence. Of the 38 US
states whose laws currently provide for the death penalty, 16 exclude its use against child
offenders, as doe’s federal law. No US state has lowered the minimum age since executions
resumed in the country in 1977.
Amnesty International Report, (2003).
Art.38 (b), United Nation Convention on Right of Child, 1986.
Rule 17 (3), Beijing Rule, 1985.
June 2019
62 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
the parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any person who has the care of the children.
Article 39 of the Convention recognized the responsibility of the state to take
measures to promote the physical and psychological recovery and social rein-
tegration of the juvenile victim from any form of the neglect, exploitation, or
abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment or armed conflicts.
Under the international law imprisonment of a juvenile is considered as
the last resort, CRC states that the no children shall be deprived of his or
her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of
children shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a last
measure of the resort, and it should be for the shortest appropriate period.
There should be no corporal and degrading punishment and the imprison-
ment of the juvenile offender without the possibility of release is considered
as the violation of the basic human right of the juvenile delinquent. The ba-
sic standard of treatment of juvenile offender now has become part of the
customary international human right law, and the Committee on the Right
of Child expressed its concern about the nations which did not prohibit the
death penalty and corporal punishment of the juvenile offender.
CRC emphasizes that all proceeding initiated against the children should
be for the best interest of juvenile offender. Article 3 (1) of CRC in all actions
related or affecting children, whether undertaken by the public or private so-
cial welfare institutions, the courts of law, legislative bodies, or administrative
authorities, the best interests of the juvenile shall be a primary consideration,
and it gave some kind of binding obligation upon the parties to that all the
proceeding related to juvenile delinquent should be for giving care and pro-
tection or development or rehabilitation and reintegration of the juvenile de-
linquent, not for punishing the juvenile delinquent. Beijing Rule gave special
importance to protect the interest of the juvenile delinquent offender, Rule 5
(1) The juvenile justice system shall emphasize the well-being of the children
and shall ensure that any reaction to child offenders shall always be in propor-
tion to the circumstances of both the offenders and offence and Beijing Rule
June 2019
64 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
The Andhra Pradesh Children Act, 1951.The Bombay Children Act, 1948.The Haryana
Children Act, 1974. The Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951.andSaurashtra& West Bengal
Children Act,1922.etc.
Ss. 82 and 83,Indian Penal Code1860.
Ss. 29(8), 29 (B), 309,399and 572, Criminal Procedure Code1973.
Ss. 53, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
June 2019
66 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
posing the fine upon the juvenile offender or guardian or parent of the ju-
venile offender. Fine is considered under the Act as a means of punishment,
even though fine has been universally applied as means of punishment in all
most all system but to some extent in juvenile administration, imposing fine is
the process of discrimination amongst the accused by personal wealth. In ju-
venile justice system especially in Madras Children Act, 1920, Bombay Chil-
dren Act,1948 and West Bengal Children Act,1922 fines were an important
tool for the punishment, there is condition is to be satisfied by the court that
the juvenile delinquent must above age of 14 and he must have been gainfully
employed and this is very rare that the parent or guardian of juvenile delin-
quent may find if they have been found not to have exercised due control over
the juvenile delinquent.
Whereas the juvenile delinquent is bound to be scarred psychologically,
the punitive measure of the precautionary consideration is minimal at the age
of the juvenile. The juvenile is least concerned about the fine. Of course, fine
imposed upon the guardian on account of juvenile delinquent belonging to a
family shall have the deterrent aspect and compel the guardian or parent to
take proper care of their children and fine also provides an opportunity to
release a juvenile delinquent who is belong to a middle-class family.
For First time offenders for small and minor offence, juvenile delinquent
should be treated with leniency, so that children are not unnecessarily accost-
ed with the unusual life of the correctional institution that is prevalent in our
country, and it also needs to be considered that the delinquent propensity of
person is minimum the family environment, therefore his family life should
not be disturbed unless essentially required. If the parents are warned, and
juvenile delinquents are admonished in such situation that itself would have
a retarding and controlling effect in the case of the first offender. Releasing
of juvenile delinquents on admonition is also to be read along with releasing
after imposing the fine, it is apparently true that the all the juveniles accused
brought before the police authorities were not produced in the children court
or any other appropriate judicial body, in such case police after warning the
June 2019
68 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
id. p 247
Children Act 1960, Sec. 22 (2).
of the offence committed and not on the sole basis of relying upon the age
of the juvenile offender. Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, implemented remarkable
changes in the juvenile justice administration especially treating the children
in conflict with the law. For the purpose of treating and disposal of case-relat-
ed the Juvenile in conflict with the law, Juvenile Justice Act 2015 categorized
offenses into three (1) petty offence (2) Serious offence (3) heinous offence
and juvenile justice board has the power to try and punish all the juvenile de-
linquent below 16 years of age who has committed any offence, also they have
the power to try and punish juveniles for serious or petty offence between 16
and 18 years. In the case of a juvenile who had committed a heinous offence,
he or she shall be treated as an adult offender. It is an obligation of the juvenile
justice board after the preliminary inquiry to transfer such children into the
children court having jurisdiction to try the case and in case of juveniles who
has been found to have committed heinous offence, he is not entitled to get
the benefit of Juvenile Justice Act, and he may be send to place of safety till he
2015(1) M L J 224. The appellant-year-old was tried and convicted for offences punish-
able under Sections 376 and 302 Indian Penal Code. For the offence of rape punishable
under Section 376, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years besides a fine
of Rs.1000/- and default sentence of one month with rigorous imprisonment. By matter
come for the final appeal appellant had served 14 years of his sentence. in final appeal
appellant raised the claim of juvenility on date of commission of offence.
A I R 2015 S C287.
S. 2 (45), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. “petty offences”
includes the offences for which the maximum punishment under the IPC or any other law
for the time being in force is imprisonment up to three years
id. S. 2 (54). “serious offences” includes the offences for which the punishment under the
IndianPenal Code or any other law for the time being in force, is imprisonment between
three to seven years;
id. S. 2 (33). “heinous offences” includes the offences for which the minimum punishment
under the IPC or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years
or more
id. S. 18 (3).“Where the Board after the preliminary assessment under the section 15 pass
an order that there is a need for the trial of the said juvenile as an adult; then the Board
may order the transfer of the trial of the case to the Children’s Court having jurisdiction
to try such offences”
id. S. 19 (3).“The Children’s Court shall ensure that the child who is found to be in conflict
withthe law is sent to a place of safety till he or she attains the age of twenty-one years and
after that, the person shall be transferred to a jail”
Pakistan
A juvenile delinquent in Pakistan is lawfully subject to degrading and in-
human treatment, in most of the provinces of Pakistan juvenile delinquents
are legally subject to death Penalty, life imprisonment without parole and cor-
poral punishment. Pakistan is one of the country in Asia ratified the CRC.
Although Pakistan enacted different legislations and introduced different pol-
June 2019
72 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
Ved kauri, “Juvenile Justice Act,2015 a Critical Understanding”, Journal of Indian Law
Institute’, vol 58(1), 98 (2016).
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, The Abolition of the Punishment of Whipping
Act, 1996, The Railways Act, 1890 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the Pakistan Penal
Code,1860, the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the Reformatory Schools Act 1897, the Hudood
Ordinances 1979, and the Sindh Children Act 1955etc
for the time being in force no child shall be- (a) awarded punishment of death, or
ordered to labour during the time spent in any borstal or such other institution”
means that the act clearly prohibits death sentence to the person aged below
18 years, but at same time many cases are reported from the different provinc-
es of Pakistan giving death sentence and other corporal punishment to juve-
nile delinquents under other different law like Control of Narcotic Substances
Act, Anti-Terrorism Act, for giving death sentence to juvenile offender , after
the promulgation of the 2000 ordinance many juvenile offenders were tried
and sentenced to death under the both act. Amnesty International Report,
2015 reported an incident that the of the juvenile offender sentenced death
and hugged in 2015 alleging that the 16-year-old child was engaged in waging
war against the Pakistan government.
The Juvenile Justice Ordinance, 2000 recognized imprisonment as the
method of punishment, sentence of Life Imprisonment is also provided for
Juvenile Offenders. According to section 11 (b) of the ordinance that make an
order directing the juvenile offender to be sent to a borstal and reformatory
institution until he completes the age of eighteen years or for the period of im-
prisonment whichever is earlier. Further, the ordinance introduces alternative
measures for the protection of juvenile delinquents from imprisonment and
other corporal punishment. In case juveniles are found to have committed
an alleged offence the court may direct the juvenile delinquent to be released
on probation for good conduct and place such children under the care and
protection of guardian or any other person executing a bond with or without
surety as the court may demand, for the good behavior and well-being of the
child for any period not exceeding the period of imprisonment awarded to
such child.
Pakistan ratified both the International Convention on the civil and politi-
cal right, 1966 and CRC but at the same time, Pakistan reserved many provi-
2005 (15) P.L.D. Lahore 15
Amnesty International Report2015, Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/
news/2015/03/12-prisonershanged-in-pakistan,(Accessed on 10 /03/ 2017)
June 2019
74 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
sion of both the conventions, stating that the provision were inconsistent with
Sharia law and Pakistan Constitution. The Committee on Rights of Child ex-
pressed its concern about the inhuman and degrading punishment of juvenile
offenders in Pakistan and recommended to “take all necessary measures to
prevent juvenile from being subjected to torture or any other cruel, degrading
or inhuman treatment or punishment in all the circumstances” and ensure
that the sentences “constituting torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treat-
ment by the parallel judicial authorities and that access to an appeal procedure
under statutory law are available for all the juvenile through the country” are
not imposed on children.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka adopted a separate system of juvenile administration for the pro-
tection and welfare of the juvenile delinquent. There are several acts in Sri
Lanka which deals with the trial and punishment of the child offender like
Youthful Offenders (Training Schools) Ordinance, 1939, Probation of Offend-
ers Ordinance, 1944, Sri Lankan Penal Code Act, 1885 and Code of Criminal
Procedure Act, 1979. The Sri Lankan Penal Code, 1885 is an important code
which prescribes the punishment for the offence and the penal code states
that death sentence shall not be pronounced on or recorded against any per-
son who, in the opinion of the court is under the age of sixteen years, but, in
lieu of that punishment, the court shall sentence such person to be detained
during the president’s pleasure, means that section 53 of the code partially
prohibiting the death sentence to children age below sixteen but ultimate de-
cision left to the will of the president, there is no any particular guideline for
the president taking the decision on the matter, all the left to the whims and
fancies of the president.
Children and young person’s ordinance is the prime law for the punishment
of the juvenile delinquent, the ordinance is intended to follow the institutional
June 2019
76 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
young person to a remand home pending his detention under the directions
of the Minister.
Most unfortunate part of the ordinance is that the ordinance was enacted
for giving care and protection and rehabilitation of juvenile offender, but at
same time Section 53 of Sri Lankan Penal Code have an overriding effect on
the ordinance, further the ordinance that where in lieu of sentence of death, a
sentence of detention during the President’s pleasure has, under section 53 of
the Penal Code, been passed by any court in respect of a person who, in the
opinion of the court is under the age of eighteen years, the court may order
that person to be detained in a remand home until the pleasure of the Presi-
dent is made known.
Sri Lanka is one of the countries which ratified the CRC and therefore the
country obliged to implement the provision of the convention to the domestic
legislation in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Supreme Court in NallaratnamSing-
arasa v. The Attorney General, Reiterated the importance of implementing
the International Convention into the domestic legislation for protecting the
right of the juvenile delinquent. The punishment imposed on the Children
and Young Person Act and Penal Code and other laws on juvenile offender
changed the system from reformative to punitive approach. CRC and ICCPR
are part of international customary law; Sri Lanka had ratified both the con-
vention. Both the convention have prohibited giving inhuman, degrading and
corporal punishment to the juvenile offender but Section 29 of the ordinance
imposing corporal punishment upon the juvenile delinquent, it in consistent
with the international human right law and further more Section 82 Penal
Code accepting corporal treatment of juvenile.
One of the important failures of juvenile administration in Sri Lanka is
the inability to establish a unique definition of child, the definition of child is
different from one act to another act in Sri Lanka. Due to lack of clarity in the
definition of child, many juveniles are subject to the adult-centric punishment
under different Act. Sri Lanka ratified the CRC therefore is legally bound to
implement the provisions of the convention and prevented the juvenile of-
Educere-BCM Journal of Social Work
Deviation from Traditional Approach of Juvenile Justice Law: 77
Does it Reduce the Juvenile Delinquency?
fender from an adult-centric punishment, the Committee on the right of the
child repeatedly recommended preventing corporal punishment on juvenile
offender.
Bangladesh
Children Act, 1974 was repealed by Children Act, 2013, Bangladesh Penal
Code, 1860; whipping Act, 1909, The Bengal Jail Code and Prisons Act, 1894
and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 are the important legislations which
are dealing with juvenile in conflict with the law in Bangladesh. Section 29 B
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 provides trial and procedure for the
juvenile delinquents in children’s Court, further section 82 of the Bangladesh
Penal Code,1860 gives protection to the child aged between 7 to 9 from any
criminal act and Section 83 of the Bangladesh Penal Code provides for con-
victing the juvenile offender aged below 12 must prove that the juvenile has
sufficient maturity to understand the consequence of his or her act. Prisons
Act, 1894 demanding the segregation of the child in conflict with a law from
the adult offender.
Children’s Act, 1974 was one of the most important legislation enacted
for the protection and welfare of the juvenile offender and furthermore pro-
tection of juvenile delinquent from the adult-centric punishment. This act
doesn’t recognize imprisonment as a regular method of punishment to the
juvenile delinquent and Act only accepted the sentencing of a child offender
as a last resort of punishment, Section 51 (1) of the Act preventing giving
punishment to juvenile offender
“Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, no child
shall be sentenced to death, transportation or imprisonment: Provided that
when a child is found to have committed an offence of so serious a nature that
S. 82,Penal Code,1860 “Nothing is an offense which is done by a child under nine years
of age”
id. S. 83. “Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above nine years of age and under
twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature
and consequence of his conduct on that occasion.”
June 2019
78 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
the Court is of opinion that no punishment, which under the provisions of this
Act it is authorized to inflict, is sufficient or when the Court is satisfied that the
child is of so unruly or of so depraved character that he cannot be committed to
a certified institute and that none of the other methods in which the case may le-
gally be dealt with is suitable, the Court may sentence the child to imprisonment
or order him to be detained in such place and on such conditions as it thinks fit:
Provided further that no period of detention so ordered shall exceed the max-
imum period of punishment for which the child could have been sentenced for
the offence committed”
“Provided further that at any time during the period of such detention the
Court may if it thinks fit, direct that instead of such detention the youthful of-
fender is kept in a certified institute until he has attained the age of eighteen
years.”
Section 51 of the act prohibits death sentence to the juvenile offender and
stating that the no person shall impose death sentence or life imprisonment
or any such kind of adult-centric punishment to juvenile offender and further
Section 51 recognized imprisonment as a method of punishment, giving ex-
ception to the general rule by stating that the when the Court is satisfied that
the child is of so unruly or of so depraved character that he cannot be com-
mitted to a certified institute and that none of the other methods in which the
case may legally be dealt with is suitable, the Court may sentence the child to
imprisonment and further emphasizing the segregation of juvenile offender
from the adult offender.
Section 52 of Children Act 1974 is dealing with detaining of juvenile in
conflict with law, Offences which are punishable with death or life imprison-
ment etc, section also states the sentencing of juvenile delinquent in certified
institution, not less than 2 years and not more than 10 years or he may be
detained, still if he has attained the age of 18, in case of children also who
are convicted of an offence punishable with death sentence, transportation
or life imprisonment. Section 53 of the act gives an alternative method for
the sentencing or sending to the certified institution juvenile delinquent, fur-
Educere-BCM Journal of Social Work
Deviation from Traditional Approach of Juvenile Justice Law: 79
Does it Reduce the Juvenile Delinquency?
ther section providing that if the court thinks fit that instead of sending to
certified institution juvenile offenders should be discharged on admonition,
or released on probation for good conduct or to be send with parent or any
guardian after execution a bond.
Children Act, 1974 is repealed by the children act 2013 with the object of
incorporating the international standard of protecting juvenile delinquent to
the domestic legislation. Act gives importance to the correctional method of
punishment rather than sentencing the juvenile offender. Section 33 of the
Act prohibit the death penalty and life imprisonment of the juvenile offender
and act further stating that imprisonment is to be considered as a last resort
of punishment, only in the case of child offenders who are of an unruly nature
or such juveniles who cannot be sent to the certified institution or juvenile de-
linquent has committed an offense which is of a serious nature, only then such
extreme circumstance can resort to the imprisonment of the juvenile offender.
In the case of the juvenile offender found guilty of the offence punishable
with life imprisonment or death sentence, he may be sent to protective insti-
tution for three years. Juvenile delinquents not charged with serious offenses
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. and has changed positively in such juvenile
delinquency may be released on after attaining 18 years old upon the rec-
ommendation of the probation officer . In a case of a juvenile delinquent not
changing positively or a juvenile charged with a serious offence he may be sent
to the jail with permission of the children court such juvenile offender may be
S.52, Children Act 1974.”Where a child is convicted of an with the child, order him to be
committed to a certified institute for detention for a period ,which shall be not less than
two and not more than ten years, but not in any case extending beyond the time when the
child will attain the age of eighteen years”
S. 33 (1), Children Act 2013, “No child shall be sentenced to death, imprisonment for
life or offence punishable with death, transportation or imprisonment, the Court may, if
it considers expedient so to deal with the child, order him to be committed to a certified
institute for detention for a period ,which shall be not less than two and not more than ten
years, but not in any case extending beyond the time when the child will attain the age of
eighteen years”
S. 33 (1).Children Act,2013. “No child shall be sentenced to death, imprisonment for life
or imprisonment”
S. 34, Children Act, 2013.
June 2019
80 Muhammed Saheeret and Sachin Menon
segregated from the adult offender and the Act maintained the provision for
discharge after admonition or release on parole or release under the respon-
sibility of parent or guardian or any other adult member of the family and
include the provision for compensation to the victim of children.
Children Act, 2013 was enacted with the objective of incorporating the
provisions of the United Nation Convention on right of the child into the
domestic legislation, preamble of the Act itself stating that the act is enacted
to implementing the provision of the CRC. But unfortunately the Act failed to
comply with the provisions of the CRC, especially in the sentencing policy of
the juvenile delinquent.
Conclusion
Juvenile justice administration in India has analyzed in this article and
understood that there are many defects in the existing juvenile justice sys-
tem some of the defects are incorrect and incomplete legal perception, prob-
lem-related to treatment of juvenile offender in case of 16 – 18 old children
alleged to have committed heinous offence, sentencing policy of Children’s
Court, problem-related to the institutional treatment of juvenile delinquent
and some other problems are related to the structural pattern and procedure
of juvenile administration .
The problem related to the juvenile justice administration is, no doubt, one
of the tragic interests of the human being. More than six decades the Indian
juvenile administration was followed the reformative and rehabilitative form
of punishment for the juvenile offender, but the unfortunate Nirbhaya inci-
dent reversed existing form treatment of juvenile delinquent. Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015 has diverted the traditional way of blanket protection of juvenile
delinquent and introduced a new way of administration juvenile justice sys-
tem in India. Juvenile Justice Act 2015 deviated from the protective system of
approach juvenile in conflict with the law and traditionally understood the
liberal form of juvenile law. The act introduced provision for transfer of 16
June 2019