Another PIL in SC challenging definition of 'juvenile'

Petition urges court to consider gravity of the offence

 The controversy over the definition of a “juvenile” intensified with yet another public interest litigation (PIL) being filed in the Supreme Court.

It contended that treating all offenders below 18 years of age as juvenile was arbitrary since it did not take into account gravity of the offence.

Two advocates, agitated over the possibility of one of the six accused in the Delhi gang-rape case getting away lightly after being declared a minor, approached the apex court urging it to declare the definition of a “juvenile” as given in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act as ultra vires.

They submitted that taking away judicial discretion in judging the offence by a juvenile under 18 years of age was not only contrary to the criminal justice system but also unconstitutional since it violated the rights of the victims to seek justice.

A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra agreed to hear the petition filed by Kamal Kumar Pandey and Sukumar on Monday.

Earlier, a similar PIL had been filed by Chandigarh-based advocate Salil Bali contending that the age limit to consider an accused as juvenile should be determined on the basis of the nature of the crime.

Contention

The PIL filed by Pandey and Sukumar contended that “maturity of the mind” and “development of reasoning faculties” were not uniform in all individuals up to the age of 18 years.

“The Indian Penal Code of 1860 enacted and codified approximately 150 years ago under section 82 and 83, represents much better classification of children in accordance with their age in respect of the offence committed by them, wherein the child up to the age of 7 years is totally exempted from any criminal liability and in case of children between the age of 7 to 12 years there is judicial discretion to judge as to the maturity level of the child in respect of the offence committed,” it said. To do away with judicial discretion altogether disregarding mental, moral and psychological maturity of an individual up to the age of 18 years was “highly irrational and was contrary to the objective to be achieved by the Act”, it added.

The Juvenile Justice Act was discriminatory against the victims as well as on the accused who may have crossed the bar by a day. Besides, the Act is in violation of Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) and 39 A (equal justice and free legal aid) of the Constitution, the petition said.

The petition also referred to 2011 data from the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB), stating that approximately 2 per cent of more than 25,000 cognizable crimes including 1,168 murders, 826 attempt to murder, 1,231 rapes, 823 kidnappings, 628 cases of sexual harassment, 5,016 instances of injuring a person, 3,334 burglaries and 6,552 thefts, were committed by juveniles.