SC won’t reduce juvenile age to 16
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to reduce the age for being considered a juvenile from 18 to 16 years and also upheld that minors accused of heinous crimes will continue to be tried by a juvenile board under the Juvenile Justice Act, and not by a regular trial court.
The apex court dismissed a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) seeking amendment to the existing juvenile law so that those below 18 years of age charged with serious crimes are punished under regular law.
“We uphold the provisions of Juvenile Act. Interference (in the Act) is not necessary,” said a bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir.
The petitions were filed after the brutal gang-rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman in a moving bus in Delhi in December 2012. One of the six persons accused of the crime was a minor when the incident happened. He has been tried by the juvenile board and if found guilty, faces a maximum punishment of three years in a correction home.
The victim's family has demanded that the juvenile accused be given the same punishment as the other adult accused as the police have alleged that the minor was the “most brutal” of the six accused.
The pleas in the apex court were opposed by various child activists, including former chairman of Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) Amod Kanth.
One of the PILs had sought examination of the constitutional validity of the provision defining juvenile in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which treats a person as a minor till he attains the age of 18 years. The petition had contended that sections 2(k), 10 and 17 of the Act which deal with the issue were irrational and ultra-vires of the Constitution.
Post new comment