INTRODUCTION
The term “juvenile” originates from two Latin words: ‘iuvenilis[i],’ meaning ‘of or belonging to youth,’ and ‘iuvenis[ii],’ meaning ‘young person.’ The definition of ‘juvenile’ is articulated under Section 2(35) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which delineates it as an individual who is below the age of eighteen years or has not yet completed the eighteenth year of age.
Juvenile delinquency[iii] is a legal term that encompasses the behavior of individuals below the age of majority who engage in activities deemed unacceptable by societal standards. It specifically refers to the conduct of juveniles characterized by antisocial behavior that has exceeded parental control, necessitating legal intervention for correction. The issue of juvenile delinquency is pervasive across all societies, regardless of their complexity, and the offenses committed by minors are designated as ‘delinquent acts.’[iv] This phenomenon should be understood not solely as a legal issue but also from a psychological perspective requiring comprehensive intervention.
Juvenile offenders are classified into two primary categories[v]: repeat offenders and age-specific offenders. Repeat offenders are individuals who have previously been adjudicated delinquent for a crime and have subsequently committed another offense. Age-specific offenders are those whose criminal behavior is particularly associated with their age group.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The historical roots of the Juvenile Justice System in India can be traced back to personal laws, encompassing both Muslim and Hindu traditions. The Hedaya and Manusmriti included provisions delineating different sets of punishments for various offenses. From 1773 to 1840, under the governance of the East India Company, the first legislative measures concerning children were introduced. Subsequently, the period from 1843 to 1950 witnessed the establishment of ragged schools for orphans and vagrant children.
Period 1950-2011
The years 1950 to 1986 were significant for the enactment of the first Central Children Act in 1960. In 1986, the Indian Parliament enacted the Juvenile Justice Act, aimed at providing care, treatment, development, and protection to delinquent juvenile offenders. This was followed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which sought to incorporate principles from various UN Conventions, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Beijing Rules, and the 1990 Rules. To further refine the legislation, amendments were made in 2006 and 2011.
Post-2011
The infamous ‘Delhi Gang Rape Case of 2012’ precipitated the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This Act marked a shift towards a more retributive approach, stipulating that minors committing heinous crimes could be tried as adults, rather than in juvenile courts. Additionally, the definition of ‘child in need of care and protection’ was expanded, and the role of the district judge was emphasized as the final authority in such cases.[vi]
THEORIES OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Anomie Theory
This theory finds its origins in Durkheim’s concept of anomie[vii], which signifies a state of normlessness. Merton further developed this theory, elucidating the correlation between culturally defined goals, such as financial success, and the legitimate means available to achieve these goals. Individuals situated in the lower socioeconomic strata, deprived of equitable opportunities, encounter a deficit in legitimate means to realize their aspirations. Consequently, they resort to illegitimate methods to attain these objectives.
Subculture Theory
It was formulated by Albert Cohen[viii], this theory attributes juvenile delinquency to the broader structures and influences within society. It posits that juveniles who fail to achieve the benchmarks set by societal expectations and standards experience a sense of rejection and inadequacy. To mitigate these feelings, they seek acceptance and validation within alternative social groups or subcultures. These subcultures are often composed of peers who have similarly struggled to conform to conventional societal norms and who engage in nonconformist or deviant behaviors. Within these subcultures, the values and norms that are esteemed often contrast sharply with those of mainstream society, thus reinforcing and perpetuating delinquent behaviors as acceptable and even desirable within the group.
Strain Theory
Strain Theoryelucidates delinquency by highlighting the absence of equal opportunities to achieve societal goals as a causal factor. The disparity between desired goals and the uneven distribution of opportunities induces frustration and strain, leading individuals, particularly those in lower socioeconomic groups, to perceive criminal behavior as a normative path. This theory is primarily applicable to lower socioeconomic strata, who may resort to theft, chain-snatching, or drug dealing.
Labeling Theory
This theory posits that deviance is not an inherent characteristic of individuals but rather a consequence of societal labeling. When society labels individuals as criminals or deviants based on self-fulfilling prophecies or stereotypes, this negative labeling ultimately precipitates actual deviant behavior.
Classical Theory
Also known as Rational Choice Theory, this framework ascribes delinquent behavior to the principle of free will, emphasizing that individuals engage in criminal activities through a process of rational decision-making. According to this theory, potential offenders weigh the perceived benefits and consequences of their actions before proceeding. They engage in a cost-benefit analysis, considering the likelihood of success and the potential risks, such as apprehension and punishment. Based on this analysis, they devise strategies to minimize risks and maximize rewards, deliberately planning their criminal activities to achieve their goals while mitigating the chances of negative outcomes. This theory underscores the role of individual agency and rational thought in the commission of criminal acts.
Conflict Theory[ix]
Expounded by Karl Marx, this theory asserts that societal conflict arises from the perpetual struggle for power and resources. Resource owners seek to suppress the poor and powerless to maximize their wealth, while the subjugated individuals resort to deviant behaviors to escape their oppression.
Developmental Theories
Developmental theories[x] concern the formation of an individual’s moral judgment regarding right and wrong, which evolves primarily during the formative years. As a result, some juveniles adhere to societal norms, while others, identified as deviants, fail to conform due to incomplete moral development. It is further posited that such deviants do not reach the same developmental milestones as those who refrain from criminal activities.
JURISPRUDENTIAL PRECEDENTS
Ratan Singh vs State of Punjab(1984)[xi]–
In this case, the Supreme Court of India adjudicated that a juvenile offender cannot be sentenced to death or life imprisonment as such sentences are prohibited under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Sheela Bharse v. Union of India(1986)[xii]–
This case was concerned with whether the children who were below the age of 16 years and kept in jails, were treated badly in the prisons. The Supreme Court observed that since the entire objective of the Juvenile legislation is avoiding adult prisons so that it does not hinder the growth of Juveniles and therefore, the Supreme Court introduced directions and asked all the States to be brought under the Children Act, 1980.
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand(2005)[xiii]–
This case holds importance as it had decided on major aspects that were touched upon during this case. When the appellant was produced he was a minor and the Additional Session Judge of the lower court held that the date of producing the juvenile in the court should be considered as the date for determination of the crime and this was affirmed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court held that the date when the crime was committed would be the criteria to determine the age of the juvenile. Further, it was held all the pending cases under the 1986 Act, and those were still pending when the 2000 Act was enforced and the person still is minor, in that case, it will be decidedby the 2000 Act. Further, the Supreme Court also held the importance of the Beijing Rules.
Jarnail Singh vs State of Haryana (2013)[xiv]–
The accused in this case was charged with taking the prosecutrix away from her parents and also forcefully committing sexual intercourse with her. He was thereby sentenced to ten years of rigorous punishment and added fines as well. Later, he appealed before the Court and alleged that she had stayed with him with her consent and further that the accuser was a minor. The Supreme Court held that the rules under the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 can be applied in those cases as well that concern with the POCSO Act, 2012.
Salil Bali vs Union of India(2013)[xv]–
In this case, a person of seventeen and a half years was charged with the offense of rape in a moving vehicle, and owing to the gravity of the offense it was argued that the 2000 Act must be reconsidered for the 16-18 age group. The Supreme Court held that the aim of the Act is rehabilitative and the age of 18 is provided on scientific and psychological grounds.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, Thr. Member Juvenile Justice Board (2014)[xvi]
The case was filed during the Nirbhaya Case, and one of the five accused was a minor. The Supreme Court had held that the legislation is based on its rehabilitating intentions and therefore, further upheld the decision to treat minors under 18 years of age separately and not as adult criminals.
In Re Contagion of COVID-19 virus in Children’s Protection Homes (2020)[xvii]
A writ petition was filed for the protection of children who were kept in observation homes and others in juvenile homes and shelter homes during the pandemic. The Supreme Court had issued directions for their safety and asked the Child welfare committees to look into the same. Online help desks and systems were also established, counseling sessions were to be given to children, and even speedy disposal of cases should be done online.
THE NEW CRIMINAL LEGISLATION
The three archaic criminal legislations have been replaced by the new Criminal legislation owing to the needs of the modern world and providing for a change in the legal framework.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(Second) Act, 2023[xviii] replaced the Indian Penal Code [xix]and the new Act is streamlined to consist only only 358 Sections as opposed to 511 Sections in IPC. Chapter V of the Act has now been consolidated to include offenses against women and children and has been given precedence unlike before. Another modification is the addition of a definition of a ‘child’ under Section 2(3)-, which is a person below the age of eighteen years. The new Act places its focus on the term child, while the previous Act used more of ‘minor’. Further, the laws related to gang rape have also seen an amendment- in the earlier Indian Penal Code, there was an age-based parameter for differential punishment for gang rape of a minor girl which stands removed in the new Act. Section 70(2) mandates life imprisonment or death for the gang rape of a minor girl. Further, Section 95 of the BNSS Act,2023[xx]also makes the engagement, employment, or inducement of a minor to commit a crime, a punishable offence with a minimum punishment of seven years. The Act aims to bring in gender equality and more inclusivity by including the phrase ‘child’ Also earlier Section 366 A of the IPC contained a provision on procurement of young females now, Section 94 of the BNSS Act, applies to any child under 18 years of age. Section 139 of the Act also now covers boys to safeguard both genders from being forced to engage in sexual activity.
CONCLUSION
The recent developments in the “Pune Porsche Case” necessitate a comprehensive examination of juvenile delinquency and the historical evolution of juvenile legislation in India. A juvenile, defined as an individual under the age of eighteen, falls within the purview of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Analyzing juvenile delinquency through theoretical frameworks is imperative as it elucidates the societal and psychological dimensions inherent in such behavior. Furthermore, over the years, jurisprudential precedents have contributed to the evolution and enhancement of juvenile laws in India, thereby augmenting their efficacy. Additionally, the emphasis on recent criminal legislation underscores the inclusive and uniform approach that contemporary law seeks to achieve.
[i]Abhilasha and Ashish (2016) Juvenile delinquency in India, Manupatra. Available at: http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/B4443CDC-5144-4816-946C-7C5EBE5122FC.pdf(Accessed: 12 June 2024).
[ii] Ibid
[iii]Mathur, K. (no date) Juvenile delinquency in India causes and prevention, Legal Service India – Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources. Available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1724-juvenile-delinquency-in-india-causes-and-prevention-.html#:~:text=Juvenile%20Delinquency%20refers%20to%20participation,be%20called%20a%20juvenile%20delinquent(Accessed: 12 June 2024).
[iv]Abhilasha and Ashish (2016) Juvenile delinquency in India, Manupatra. Available at: http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/B4443CDC-5144-4816-946C-7C5EBE5122FC.pdf (Accessed: 12 June 2024).
[v]Nathan and Altagrace (2023) Juvenile delinquency | definition, types & history – video & lesson transcript | study.com, Study.com. Available at: https://study-com.translate.goog/learn/lesson/juvenile-delinquency-overview-history-laws.html?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=id&_x_tr_hl=id&_x_tr_pto=tc(Accessed: 12 June 2024).
[vi]Vaishnavi, Rohit and Parul (2019) All about juvenile justice act, iPleaders. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-juvenile-justice-act/(Accessed: 12 June 2024).
[vii]Theories on juvenile delinquency (docx) (2024) Course Sidekick. Available at: https://www.coursesidekick.com/sociology/4375599(Accessed: 12 June 2024).
[viii]John (2024),” encyclopedia of sociology. . encyclopedia.com. 15 may. 2024., Encyclopedia.com. Available at: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/juvenile-delinquency-theories(Accessed: 12 June 2024).
[ix]Hayes, A. (2024) Conflict theory definition, founder, and examples, Investopedia. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp(Accessed: 12 June 2024).
[x]Raturi, S. and Rastogi, S. (2022) ‘Sociological theories of juvenile delinquency’, International journal of health sciences, 6, pp.7441–7449.doi: 10.53730/ijhs.v6ns3.7691.
[xi]1980 AIR 84
[xii] 1986 AIR 1773
[xiii] 2005 SC 2731
[xiv] 2013 SC 3467
[xv] 2013 SC 3743
[xvi] 2014 SCW 2021
[xvii] 2020 SC 354
[xviii] The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita(Second) Act 2023
[xix] The Indian Penal Code,1860
[xx]Ibid
This blog is authored by Aishwarya Agnihotri, a student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University.