Posts
Source: The Times of India
Growing disenchantment with the lenient provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act that allows convicted teens to get away with lighter sentences has led a lawyer to file a PIL in the Delhi high court.
Citing the alleged brutality of the juvenile accused in the Nirbhaya gang rape and other instances reported by TOI, Shweta Kapoor's plea urges the high court to quash certain sections of the Juvenile Justice Act. PIL: Impose stricter punishment for rape Recent incidents have shown that it is society which "needs care and protection," instead of the juvenile offenders, it says. The PIL which is to come up for hearing before the Chief Justice on Wednesday, also seeks enhancement of the punishment for rape.
"Issue an appropriate writ ...or direction declaring the provisions of section 16(1) (1st part without proviso), the proviso to subsection 2 of section 16 ...of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, as ultravires to the Constitution..," the PIL says.
It argues that recent incidents show that juveniles, who have attained the age of 16 years, are involved in serious crimes and are "quite well developed and they do not need the care and protection of the society, rather the society needs the care and protection against them". Section 16 of the Act, which deals with the protection extended to juveniles, says they cannot be "sentenced to death or life imprisonment". The provision also says that delinquents above 16 years shall be kept in special homes away from other minors and the period of detention would be three years.
"In other words section 16 envisages a different class of juveniles who have committed an offence of serious nature and cannot be kept in special homes. Therefore subsection 1 of section 16 (1st part) of the Act is ultra vires," the PIL claims.
The PIL assumes significance in the backdrop of the December 16 gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old student in which investigations have indicated that a minor, 17, was allegedly the "most brutal" of the six accused. The PIL also goes into the dilemma of the accused being allowed to walk if he is convicted and given three years — as he cannot be kept with minor convicts and cannot be jailed with adults either, having been tried under the Juvenile Justice Act.
"The very fact that gruesome acts and heinous crimes have been committed by a number of juveniles between the age of 16 and 18 years would show that certain provisions of the Act are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that unequals have been clubbed together and given the same benefit though the same benefit cannot be given to the class of juveniles between the age of 16 to 18 years who have been found involved in heinous and grave crimes," the PIL argues.
It wonders why "a person committing a serious crime after attaining the age of 17 years and 364 days cannot be treated differently from the person who commits the same crime after attaining the age of 18 years and one day."
Growing disenchantment with the lenient provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act that allows convicted teens to get away with lighter sentences has led a lawyer to file a PIL in the Delhi high court.
Citing the alleged brutality of the juvenile accused in the Nirbhaya gang rape and other instances reported by TOI, Shweta Kapoor's plea urges the high court to quash certain sections of the Juvenile Justice Act. PIL: Impose stricter punishment for rape Recent incidents have shown that it is society which "needs care and protection," instead of the juvenile offenders, it says. The PIL which is to come up for hearing before the Chief Justice on Wednesday, also seeks enhancement of the punishment for rape.
"Issue an appropriate writ ...or direction declaring the provisions of section 16(1) (1st part without proviso), the proviso to subsection 2 of section 16 ...of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, as ultravires to the Constitution..," the PIL says.
It argues that recent incidents show that juveniles, who have attained the age of 16 years, are involved in serious crimes and are "quite well developed and they do not need the care and protection of the society, rather the society needs the care and protection against them". Section 16 of the Act, which deals with the protection extended to juveniles, says they cannot be "sentenced to death or life imprisonment". The provision also says that delinquents above 16 years shall be kept in special homes away from other minors and the period of detention would be three years.
"In other words section 16 envisages a different class of juveniles who have committed an offence of serious nature and cannot be kept in special homes. Therefore subsection 1 of section 16 (1st part) of the Act is ultra vires," the PIL claims.
The PIL assumes significance in the backdrop of the December 16 gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old student in which investigations have indicated that a minor, 17, was allegedly the "most brutal" of the six accused. The PIL also goes into the dilemma of the accused being allowed to walk if he is convicted and given three years — as he cannot be kept with minor convicts and cannot be jailed with adults either, having been tried under the Juvenile Justice Act.
"The very fact that gruesome acts and heinous crimes have been committed by a number of juveniles between the age of 16 and 18 years would show that certain provisions of the Act are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that unequals have been clubbed together and given the same benefit though the same benefit cannot be given to the class of juveniles between the age of 16 to 18 years who have been found involved in heinous and grave crimes," the PIL argues.
It wonders why "a person committing a serious crime after attaining the age of 17 years and 364 days cannot be treated differently from the person who commits the same crime after attaining the age of 18 years and one day."
No comments:
Post a Comment