President nod to trial of juveniles as adults for serious crimes

President nod to trial of juveniles as adults for serious crimes 

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, got President’s nod.

The lowering of the age from the existing 18 years means that those aged 16 and above will no longer enjoy protection under the Juvenile Justice law, under which juveniles cannot be tried under the normal law of the land that provides punishment of up to death for rape and murder.

The demand for reducing the age for trying juveniles for heinous crimes was made following the December, 2012, Delhi gangrape case, in which a paramedical student was brutally gangraped and mercilessly assaulted in a moving bus in the national capital.

A juvenile was involved in the tragic incident which had caused national outrage.

Incidentally, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015, was passed on December 22 last year by Parliament days after the juvenile involved in the Nirbhaya gangrape case walked free in accordance with the earlier provision under the law.

 

What does Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015 says?

• The Bill replaces the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

• It addresses children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection.

• Eligibility of adoptive parents and the procedure for adoption have been included in the Bill.The Bill permits juveniles between the ages of 16-18 years to be tried as adults for heinous offences. (Which was not in the previous bill)

• Also, any 16-18 year old, who commits a lesser, i.e., serious offence, may be tried as an adult only if he is apprehended after the age of 21 years.

• Penalties for cruelty against a child, offering a narcotic substance to a child, and abduction or selling a child have been prescribed.

• The Juvenile Justice Board has been given the option to transfer cases of heinous offences by such children to a Children’s Court (Court of Session) after conducting preliminary assessment.

• The provisions provide for placing children in a ‘place of safety’ both during and after the trial till they attain the age of 21 years after which an evaluation of the child shall be conducted by the Children’s Court. After the evaluation, the child is either released on probation and if the child is not reformed then the child will be sent to a jail for remaining term.

• To streamline adoption procedures for orphan, abandoned and surrendered children, the existing Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) has been given the status of a statutory body to enable it to perform its function more effectively.

• There is a separate chapter on Adoption which provides detailed provisions relating to adoption and punishments for not complying with the laid down procedure. Processes have been streamlined with timelines for both in-country and inter-country adoption including declaring a child legally free for adoption.

• Several rehabilitation and social reintegration measures have been provided for institutionalization and non-institutionalization of children.

• Under the institutional care, children are to be provided with various services including education, health, nutrition, de-addiction, treatment of diseases, vocational training, skill development, life skill education, counselling, etc to help them assume a constructive role in the society.

• The variety of non-institutional options include: sponsorship and foster care including group foster care for placing children in a family environment which is other than child’s biological family, which is to be selected, qualified, approved and supervised for providing care to children.

• Several new offences committed against children, which are so far not adequately covered under any other law, have also been made part of this law. These include: sale and procurement of children for any purpose including illegal adoption, corporal punishment in child care institutions, use of child by militant groups, offences against disabled children and, kidnapping and abduction of children.

What is the President’s role in passing Bills?

The Legislative procedure in India for the Union Government requires that proposed bills pass through the two legislative houses of the Indian parliament, i.e. the Lok Sabhaand the Rajya Sabha.

When a bill has been passed, it is sent to the President for his approval.

The President can assent or withhold his assent to a bill or he can return a bill, other than a money bill which is recommended by president himself to the houses, with his recommendations. If the President gives his assent, the bill is published in The Gazette of India and becomes an Act from the date of his assent.

If he withholds his assent, the bill is dropped, which is known as absolute veto. The president can exercise absolute veto on aid and advice of council of ministers. Following position can be arrived by reading article 111 of Indian constitution with article 74.

The president may also effectively withhold his assent as per his own discretion, which is known as pocket veto.

The pocket veto is not written in the constitution and has only been exercised once by President Zail Singh: in 1986, over the postal act where the government wanted to open postal letters without warrant.

After three years, in 1989, the next President R Venkataraman sent the bill back for reconsideration, but the new National Front Government decided to drop the bill.

1951: President Rajendra Prasad opposed the Nehru Government’as Hindu Code Bill. When Nehru expressed surprise, Prasad threatened to refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

1962: In the wake of the India-China war, President S. Radhakrishnan ensured that defence minister Krishna Menon was removed from the Cabinet despite Nehru’s protests.

1998: K.R. Narayanan sent back the I.K. Gujral Government’s proposal to impose President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh.

2006:President A P J Abdul Kalam tonight refused assent to the Bill seeking to protect MPs from disqualification under the law on office of profit, saying he saw no merit in its applicability with retrospective effect from 1959.

If the president returns it for reconsideration, the Parliament must do so, but if it is passed again and returned to him, he must give his assent to it.

In the case of a Constitutional Amendment Bill, the President is bound to give his assent.