<p>Two weeks after the National Commission for the Protection of Child Right issued draft guidelines on whether the preliminary assessment of minors in certain cases could be tried under law as adults under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, child rights activists have asked the Centre to reconsider its guidelines. </p>.<p>After a directive by the Supreme Court, the Commission had issued guidelines on January 4, asking for comments before Friday. A group of child rights activists have now asked the child rights body to not standardise the rule and take up cases individually. </p>.<p>“Formats for standardised and uniform psychological assessment that most juvenile justice boards rely on to decide on transferring children to the Children's Court for trial as adults can be detrimental to the child as well as the objectives of the JJ Act,” a submission to the NCPCR from activists reads. </p>.<p>Section 15 (1) of the JJ Act states that in the case of a heinous offence in which a minor above the age of sixteen is an accused, then the Juvenile Justice Board will conduct a preliminary assessment to assess the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, the child’s ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which the child has allegedly committed the offence. After the assessment, the Board can pass an order stating that there is either no need for trial of the said child as an adult, transfer of the trial of the case to any children’s court, or rule that the child must be tried as an adult. </p>.<p>The activists have contended that information from the ground suggests that preliminary assessments have adversely impacted the rights otherwise guaranteed to children under law. “For example, most children are unable to fully exercise their right to be heard during preliminary assessment. Children are not informed about the process and its implications nor is any attempt made at taking their informed consent before subjecting them to tests and assessments, which are intrusive, can amount to waiver of right against self-incrimination, and can create a prejudice against them even before the inquiry or trial is completed,” the submission reads. </p>.<p>The activists have also said that in many cases, JJBs deny bail to children until the preliminary assessment is completed, which is against the provisions on bail for children in conflict with the law established under Section 12 of the JJ Act. </p>
<p>Two weeks after the National Commission for the Protection of Child Right issued draft guidelines on whether the preliminary assessment of minors in certain cases could be tried under law as adults under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, child rights activists have asked the Centre to reconsider its guidelines. </p>.<p>After a directive by the Supreme Court, the Commission had issued guidelines on January 4, asking for comments before Friday. A group of child rights activists have now asked the child rights body to not standardise the rule and take up cases individually. </p>.<p>“Formats for standardised and uniform psychological assessment that most juvenile justice boards rely on to decide on transferring children to the Children's Court for trial as adults can be detrimental to the child as well as the objectives of the JJ Act,” a submission to the NCPCR from activists reads. </p>.<p>Section 15 (1) of the JJ Act states that in the case of a heinous offence in which a minor above the age of sixteen is an accused, then the Juvenile Justice Board will conduct a preliminary assessment to assess the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, the child’s ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which the child has allegedly committed the offence. After the assessment, the Board can pass an order stating that there is either no need for trial of the said child as an adult, transfer of the trial of the case to any children’s court, or rule that the child must be tried as an adult. </p>.<p>The activists have contended that information from the ground suggests that preliminary assessments have adversely impacted the rights otherwise guaranteed to children under law. “For example, most children are unable to fully exercise their right to be heard during preliminary assessment. Children are not informed about the process and its implications nor is any attempt made at taking their informed consent before subjecting them to tests and assessments, which are intrusive, can amount to waiver of right against self-incrimination, and can create a prejudice against them even before the inquiry or trial is completed,” the submission reads. </p>.<p>The activists have also said that in many cases, JJBs deny bail to children until the preliminary assessment is completed, which is against the provisions on bail for children in conflict with the law established under Section 12 of the JJ Act. </p>
