5 months ago
2
A two-day National Consultation connected ‘The Treatment of Children successful Conflict with the Law arsenic Adults: Rights Implications’ was held astatine NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad concluded connected Saturday, marking 10 years of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The juvenile justness strategy reflects the reformative and rehabilitative tone of the instrumentality astatine its core, Justice B. V. Nagarathna, Judge and Chairperson of the Juvenile Justice Committee of the Supreme Court of India, said successful her inaugural address. She stressed that Juvenile Justice Boards indispensable beryllium regularly and not simply connected an occasional basis. Referring to respective Supreme Court judgements, she highlighted the value of progressive judicial interpretation. Public outrage cannot dictate judicial proceedings, which indispensable alternatively beryllium guided by discipline, humility and fidelity, she added.
Chief Justice of Telangana High Court Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, successful his address, highlighted the intricacies of the Juvenile Justice Act, including the Preliminary Assessment and Transfer System. He noted that the 2015 Act marked a important departure from the restorative and rehabilitative philosophies of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law Srikrishna Deva Rao, successful his address, underscored the value of owed process successful the juvenile justness system. He reiterated that process is arsenic captious arsenic the principles laid down successful the legislation, describing juvenile justness arsenic “tender justice” and pointing to the motivation committedness of the instrumentality towards the attraction and extortion of children successful struggle with the law.
Across aggregate panels and dialogues, participants flagged superior legal, procedural, intelligence and rights-based concerns arising from the signifier of treating children arsenic adults, peculiarly done preliminary assessments nether Section 15 of the JJ Act.
Participants noted that these courts often relation administratively alternatively than arsenic robust reviewing authorities, with constricted scrutiny of Juvenile Justice Board orders and minimal post-order monitoring of rehabilitation. It was further pointed retired that children tried successful Children’s Courts often look delays, logistical barriers, deficiency of entree to records and inadequate ineligible representation, often experiencing the juvenile justness strategy arsenic much onerous than the big transgression justness system.
