The Delhi High Court’s decision to allow the juvenile rapist of the December 16 Delhi gang rape case to walk free has triggered a storm of outrage across vast sections of the Indian public and media.
On Friday, while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy, the court refused to stay the release of the youngest convict in the infamous 2012 gang rape case. According to the two-judge bench, the juvenile – who is now 20 – will complete his three-year term in a state-run correctional home by December 20 and cannot be legally prohibited from release after that.
In December 2012, five men and the juvenile raped and tortured a 23-year-old medical student on a moving bus in Delhi. The incident that sparked widespread protests across the country, which intensified after the victim died 13 days later. The protests led to the formation of more stringent laws to deal with rape in India. However, attempts to amend the Juvenile Justice Act and lower the age of juveniles from 18 to 16 – so that serious offenders above age 16 could be tried as adults – have not been successful. In the past week, the victim’s parents have made several emotional appeals to continue keeping the juvenile offender in “jail”, and on Friday, they termed the court’s verdict as a victory of “crime”.
But his release is not the only reason behind the public’s outburst of indignation. A large part of the anger is also directed towards the rehabilitation plan that the Delhi government’s women and child development department has announced for the juvenile. According to the plan, he will receive a one-time monetary grant of Rs 10,000 and a sewing machine along with additional help to set up a tailoring business.
While those outraged about the juvenile’s release find this rehabilitation package to be unjust in the context of his crime, experts who work in the field of child rights and juvenile crime say there is nothing new or remarkable about the “after-care” that this young man is set to receive once he leaves the correctional home.
What the law prescribes
“The juvenile in this case is not being given any special treatment – he is being given exactly the kind of rehabilitation into the mainstream that the law prescribes,” said Enakshi Ganguly Thukral, co-founder of the non-profit HAQ Centre for Child Rights in Delhi.
According to the Juvenile Justice Act, every child who is apprehended for a crime and placed in a state-run home for delinquents must be matched with a probationary officer. The officer is responsible for finding out the needs of each child within their specific contexts, and ensuring that those needs are met once the child has completed their term in the home and is repatriated into mainstream society.
Not every child who leaves a delinquent institution is given a monetary grant or help to set up a business, but the “after-care” is designed to suit the case of each individual. Some may be enrolled into vocational training courses, others may be rehabilitated in schools. More than half the juveniles detained in homes, says Thukral, are not even eligible for various vocational training courses, because they are either illiterate or educated only up to the primary level. Similarly, more than half the delinquents apprehended for crimes in India come from economically poor backgrounds.
Implementation problems
The role of the probationary officer, as envisioned by the Act, is to follow-up regularly with the juvenile once he or she has left the institution, but the aim is not just to prevent recidivism.
“The aim of doing the follow-ups is to ensure that the child is effectively rehabilitated into society – to ensure that there is reform,” said Persis Sidhwa, a lawyer from Majlis, a Mumbai-based non-profit legal centre for women’s rights.
When things go right – when probationary officers successfully follow-up with juveniles and almost take up the role of a mentor – reform does successfully take place. The problem, say Sidhwa and other experts, is that the provisions of the law are not always implemented effectively, for various reasons. For one, the ratio of staff to children in juvenile homes is very poor, making it difficult for each child’s particular reform needs to be assessed. Another reason is that educational and counselling facilities are not always adequately provided in the homes.
“If these facilities and opportunities are not provided, there is a risk that the child will repeat criminal activity,” said Sidhwa. “Demanding that the age of juveniles be lowered to 16 is the easy thing to do. But we need to ask the larger question – why are these facilities not provided effectively in state-run homes?”
According to Thukral, “quick-fix” solutions like lowering the juvenile age or demanding that the Delhi gang rape convict be jailed for longer will not really make society safer. “Legal justice does not run on emotions,” she said. “The law is clear about after-care for juveniles. We need to focus on improving implementation.”
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
On Friday, while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy, the court refused to stay the release of the youngest convict in the infamous 2012 gang rape case. According to the two-judge bench, the juvenile – who is now 20 – will complete his three-year term in a state-run correctional home by December 20 and cannot be legally prohibited from release after that.
In December 2012, five men and the juvenile raped and tortured a 23-year-old medical student on a moving bus in Delhi. The incident that sparked widespread protests across the country, which intensified after the victim died 13 days later. The protests led to the formation of more stringent laws to deal with rape in India. However, attempts to amend the Juvenile Justice Act and lower the age of juveniles from 18 to 16 – so that serious offenders above age 16 could be tried as adults – have not been successful. In the past week, the victim’s parents have made several emotional appeals to continue keeping the juvenile offender in “jail”, and on Friday, they termed the court’s verdict as a victory of “crime”.
But his release is not the only reason behind the public’s outburst of indignation. A large part of the anger is also directed towards the rehabilitation plan that the Delhi government’s women and child development department has announced for the juvenile. According to the plan, he will receive a one-time monetary grant of Rs 10,000 and a sewing machine along with additional help to set up a tailoring business.
While those outraged about the juvenile’s release find this rehabilitation package to be unjust in the context of his crime, experts who work in the field of child rights and juvenile crime say there is nothing new or remarkable about the “after-care” that this young man is set to receive once he leaves the correctional home.
What the law prescribes
“The juvenile in this case is not being given any special treatment – he is being given exactly the kind of rehabilitation into the mainstream that the law prescribes,” said Enakshi Ganguly Thukral, co-founder of the non-profit HAQ Centre for Child Rights in Delhi.
According to the Juvenile Justice Act, every child who is apprehended for a crime and placed in a state-run home for delinquents must be matched with a probationary officer. The officer is responsible for finding out the needs of each child within their specific contexts, and ensuring that those needs are met once the child has completed their term in the home and is repatriated into mainstream society.
Not every child who leaves a delinquent institution is given a monetary grant or help to set up a business, but the “after-care” is designed to suit the case of each individual. Some may be enrolled into vocational training courses, others may be rehabilitated in schools. More than half the juveniles detained in homes, says Thukral, are not even eligible for various vocational training courses, because they are either illiterate or educated only up to the primary level. Similarly, more than half the delinquents apprehended for crimes in India come from economically poor backgrounds.
Implementation problems
The role of the probationary officer, as envisioned by the Act, is to follow-up regularly with the juvenile once he or she has left the institution, but the aim is not just to prevent recidivism.
“The aim of doing the follow-ups is to ensure that the child is effectively rehabilitated into society – to ensure that there is reform,” said Persis Sidhwa, a lawyer from Majlis, a Mumbai-based non-profit legal centre for women’s rights.
When things go right – when probationary officers successfully follow-up with juveniles and almost take up the role of a mentor – reform does successfully take place. The problem, say Sidhwa and other experts, is that the provisions of the law are not always implemented effectively, for various reasons. For one, the ratio of staff to children in juvenile homes is very poor, making it difficult for each child’s particular reform needs to be assessed. Another reason is that educational and counselling facilities are not always adequately provided in the homes.
“If these facilities and opportunities are not provided, there is a risk that the child will repeat criminal activity,” said Sidhwa. “Demanding that the age of juveniles be lowered to 16 is the easy thing to do. But we need to ask the larger question – why are these facilities not provided effectively in state-run homes?”
According to Thukral, “quick-fix” solutions like lowering the juvenile age or demanding that the Delhi gang rape convict be jailed for longer will not really make society safer. “Legal justice does not run on emotions,” she said. “The law is clear about after-care for juveniles. We need to focus on improving implementation.”
