The Curious Case of Juvenile Justice

On May 19, 2024 a 17 year old minor, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, drove his family’s luxury car at high speed killing 2 civilians in Pune. The minor was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) by the Pune Police. In a matter of hours, he was granted bail and directed by the Board to submit a 300 word essay on ‘Road Safety’. Post  public outcry, the Pune police filed for a review of this decision and the Juvenile Justice Board revoked the bail order of the accused minor and passed a remand order directing the child to be sent to an observation home till June 5, 2024. The case concerning the minor is still under trial. However, the Mumbai High Court ruled against the JJB’s remand orders and have released the boy from the observation home and transferred custody to his paternal aunt, while his parents and grandfather undergo trial for other offences related to this case. 

‘The Pune Porsche Crash’ as the case is infamously referred to has received significant public attention for several reasons. 

1. It cost two innocent lives, the driver was under-age and under the influence of alcohol. A clear breach of law leading to a heinous crime under the Indian Penal Code. 

2. The minor was a few days short of turning 18 years and the trial would have taken a completely different course if the accident had occurred a few days later, on the other side of 18. He would have been tried as an adult and action would have been more punitive in nature.

3. The minor’s family, an affluent and influential party in Pune, unlawfully interfered in the investigation via subornation and evidence tampering, derailing justice to the victims and the minor accused in the case. 

For a better understanding of principles that govern Juvenile Justice in India, you may refer to the information here. To put these in perspective, ‘The Pune Porsche Crash’ is a fitting case study.

Firstly, the law is not prejudiced, the system is. The fault is not in the statute but in the machinery that enforces it. So whether a child is privileged or poor, it is our duty to protect, rehabilitate and reintegrate him nonetheless. 

Until 2016, all children below 18 years and in conflict with law were tried differently from adults, under the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2001. Post incidents involving ‘juveniles’ like the Delhi Gang Rape in 2012, the Act was amended and was replaced by the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The revised statute now allows the Juvenile Justice Board to assess whether a child in conflict with law should be tried as an adult.

---

WHAN CAN A 'CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW' BE TRIED AS AN ADULT?

1.The child must be between 16 and 18 years of age. 

2. The child is alleged to have committed a heinous crime as recognised by the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which has replaced the Indian Penal Code from July 1, 2024.

3. Post a preliminary assessment conducted by the JJB that will determine:

• the minor’s mental and physical capability to commit such offence 

• ability to understand the consequences of the offence and 

• the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence
  

---

In the Pune car crash, the child was 17 years and 11 months at the time of the accident and has been accused of committing a heinous crime, which is the death of 2 civilians by underage driving and under the influence of alcohol. However, this is not sufficient reason to determine whether the child can be tried as an adult. The preliminary assessment to determine the course of the trail is still in process. 

The principles of Child Rights state that children below the age of 18 years do not have the maturity, understanding, judgement, knowledge and experience to act independently or take responsibility for their actions. It is these principles that also deprive them of the right to drive, consume alcohol, vote, consensual sex, marriage etc. We need to understand that child rights are indivisible, interdependent and non-alienable. If we demand a child be tried as an adult only on the basis of his age and the nature of his act, we must also be willing to make the same consideration with respect to rights that he would otherwise not enjoy at that age like voting, driving, consensual sex etc.  Since he was ‘nearly’ 18 years, the boy’s family thought it was acceptable to offer him alcohol and permit him to drive. They have been charged for negligence and forcing consumption of prohibited substances to a minor. Being 17 years, 11 months and 24 days is neither a justification for a child to be permitted to drink or drive, nor is it reason enough for him to be tried as an adult when in conflict with law. 

Child Rights or Child Protection (including Juvenile justice) by no means refers to shielding the child from realities of life or the consequences of their actions. Instead, it refers to the duty of adults (family, community, school, state) to provide appropriate opportunity, discipline and support to strengthen the child in facing challenges that he will encounter as he grows. The adults’ failure to do so is not the fault of the child. Expecting a punishment for the child based on the offences committed by his family members is against the principles of child rights and in violation of the same. In this case, the trial of the minor must be independent of the charges against the parents and officials involved in the case. 

Under the Juvenile Justice Act, in a case under trial, Institutional custody of a child in conflict with law is a protective measure and not a punitive one. Only if the JJB is convinced that the child is at threat when released on bail are they allowed to send him into State custody. While the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 does permit the JJB to revise the bail conditions, it does not provide for a bail order to be revoked in the manner executed in this case. The grounds for revoking this bail order are yet to be proved but submitting to power play, subornation or public outrage will only highlight the incompetence of a Juvenile Justice Board and should be tackled separately from the case itself. It is a failure of the State child protection machinery but the minor was made the scapegoat.

At this point in time, we are nowhere close to justice. Neither for the victims nor for the child accused in the case. Public interest has aroused accountability and responsibility amongst parties involved in the right direction. While I am not in a position to define what justice would mean to the families of the victims but the ‘end of justice’ for a child in conflict with law is when society gives him/her an opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate in such manner that the individual (as a child or an adult) is not prompted to or doesn’t find the need to engage in unlawful behaviour in the future. This could be achieved by keeping the child in state custody, sending him for rehabilitation to a fit facility or releasing him with certain conditions… only time and justice will tell.

-Pallavi Lotlikar