Round Table Conference opposes lowering juvenile age from 18 to 16

A Round Table Conference held here earlier has opposed lowering of juvenile age from 18 to 16 years besides recommending suitable changes in Draft Jammu and Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Bill 2018 to restrict adoptions to state subjects. The Conference was convened under the auspices of Selection cum Oversight Committee, Mission Directorate ICPS and Save the Children.

Justice Hasnain Masoodi Chairperson Selection cum Oversight Committee (SCOC) has submitted the recommendations to the government. The RTC has recommended that the practice of copy pasting the Central Act may be avoided and new Act be tailored as per local imperatives.

   

Underscoring that the title of the Draft Bill and definition clause deserves to be given a second look, the RTC has held that the word “Juvenile” needed to be discarded wherever used in the Draft Bill 2018. 

Observing that the word Juvenile over the years has got attached to it a taint of criminality, the RTC held that the same has impacted public perception and there was no reason to live with this hangover. 

The RTC said the use of different expressions for “children in conflict with law” and “children in need of care and protection” creates confusion in general public. “It would be appropriate to use uniform expression “children” for both the target groups and the title of the proposed Act as well,” the RTC recommended. 

With regard to age of Juvenility, the RTC pointed out that the proposed categorization of “juveniles in conflict with law” into two groups – below 16 years and from 16 to 18 and a shift from rehabilitative to punitive approach in case of latter group, offends the very conceptual framework of Juvenile Justice law.

Pointing out that the International Covenants recognize 18 years as the “age of juvenility”, the RTC underlined that lowering of the juvenility age is in conflict with these Covenants. “The lowering of the juvenility age from 18 years to 16 years is not in tune with other laws dealing with rights of adults and by implication denying those rights to juveniles,” it said. 

By giving various instances why the age of 18 years cannot be lowered to 16 years, the RTC held that “Contract denies right to enter into a contract to one below 18 years of age and Representation of Peoples Act denies right of vote to one below 18 years and the underlying logic is that age of reason is 18 years. 

“There is no reason to apply a different yard sticks in case of Juvenile in conflict with law and attribute to him/her intention and knowledge – the very basis of criminal liability” the RTC held. ” “Modern research in psychological development of human beings suggests 22 years as age of reason and bringing it down to 16 years would not be therefore justified having regard to results of such studies.” 

The lowering down the age and excluding role of JJ Board in case of 16-18 age group and providing for trial where the offence alleged carries sentence of seven years or imprisonment, the RTC has held, would give a wide discretion to the law makers to prescribe seven or more years sentence in any offence so as to exclude 16-18 age group from the purview of JJ Board and therefore reformative and rehabilitative approach.

“Categorizing juveniles in two groups on the basis of age and offences on the basis of sentence prescribed, in Act of 2015 was an emotional reaction to a particular unfortunate incident and having developments in metropolitan and urban areas in mind; that same standards cannot be applied to rural areas and children presumed attain age of reason at an earlier age”. 

The participants in the RTC have flaunted a consensus that there should not be categorisation of Juveniles in two groups of below 16 years and 16-18 years and in effect depriving the second group of the benefits under existing law or lowering the age of juvenility as is proposed in the Draft Bill 2018.

“Provision in the Draft Bill 2018 in this regard should be deleted and replaced by the corresponding provision in the existing law – J&K JJ(CNPC) Act 2013 and age of juvenility retained as 18 years,” the RTC recommended. 

With regard to adoption, the RTC said the Chapter aimed to regulate adoptions has not been incorporated in the JJ Act of 2013. 

“The decision presumably was not inadvertent but a conscious decision. There must be compelling reasons to now incorporate the Chapter in the proposed Act,” RTC held. 

The provision in the Draft Bill 2018 providing for adoption, the RTC said, is an enabling and regulatory provision and has been made subject to personal law. “This must dispel doubts and make it clear that the Act would come into play only when an adoption is proposed,” it added. “The Chapter in the Draft Bill relating to adoption however raises concerns about the special status of the State and the State Subject /Permanent Resident law intertwined with the special status”. 

The RTC recommended that a provision needs to be introduced laying down eligibility criteria for the child to be adopted as has been laid down in case of adoptive parents.

“Again the Authority identified in the Draft Bill will lose control over the child given in adoption outside the State and therefore not be in a position to ensure welfare of the child given in adoption, and watch his interests. The eligibility criteria for both prospective adoptive parents and the child proposed to be given in adoption may be so prescribed that both the prospective adoptive parents as well as child proposed to be given in adoption are necessarily required to be permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir,” the RTC said. 

The requirement of “prospective adoptive parents,” the RTC said, being “physically fit” deserves a second look. The expression “physically fit,” it added, is too wide a term with chances of misinterpretation and is prejudicial to the interests and rights specially abled people. “The disqualification may be restricted to such of the specially abled who in the opinion of the Authority are not fit to take care of a child”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

11 − two =