Respondent (uoi)

TEAM ‘C’

SMT. VELAGAPUDI DURGAMBA SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE 1STALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDUSTAN

THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF HINDUSTAN

WRIT PETITION NO: ____/ 2015 CASE CONCERNING THE AGE OF JUVENILE DELINQUENTS

CHILD RIGHTS ADVOCACY FOUNDATION PETITIONER v.

THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN RESPONDENT SUBMISSION TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDUSTAN

MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………….II LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………………………………….III INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………….V STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………………………X STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………………………………XI STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………………………………….XIII SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………………………………XIV ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………………………………….1 SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE COURT………………………………………………………………..XVI

II

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

All India Report And Another Article

AIR & Anr. Art.

Corporation Et Cetera Fundamental Rights

Corp. Etc FRs

Honorable Indian Law Institute Integrated Child Protection Scheme Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act,2000 Limited Madhya Pradesh

Hon’ble ILI ICPS JJCPA ltd M.P.

Maximum

Max.

Minimum

Min.

National Crime Rate Bureau

NCRB

National Human Rights Commission Number Others Page Public Interest Litigation Section

NHRC No. Ors Pg. PIL Sec.

Supreme Court Supreme Court Cases Supreme Court Judges Library

SC SCC SCJL

Through

Thr.

Union of India United Nations

UOI UN III

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

United States Uttar Pradesh Versus

U.S. U.P v.

Volume West Bengal

Vol. W.B.

IV

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES U.N CONVENTIONS Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 Entered into force on March 23, 1976 International Covenant on Economic Social Cultural Rights, 1966 Entered into force on Jan 3, 1976 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985 (Beijing Rules) Convention on the Rights of Child, 1989, Entered into force on 2.9.1990 United Nations Guidelines for Prevention of Juvenile delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines), 1990 United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juvenile deprived of their liberty, 1990. Guidelines for Action on Children and Criminal Justice System, Vienna, 1997 STATUTES Constitution of India Indian Penal Code,1860 The Children and Young Persons Act,1963 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 The Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act,1974 The Protection of Human Rights Act,1993 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) act,2000 Youth Criminal Justice Act,2003 Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Rules,2007 JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CASE

CITATION

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari V. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. Ajahar Ali V. State Of West Bengal Amar Singh And Ors. Etc. Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors. Etc Ameerunnissa Begum V. Mahboob Begum Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/S GAR Re-Rolling Mills And Anr., Apparel Export Promotion Council V. A.K. Chopra, Ashok Kumar Thakur V. Union Of India

(2011) 11 SCC 214

FOOTNOTE NO. 42

(2013) 10 SCC 31 [2007] 2 BLJR 2575

46 10

AIR 1953 SC 91 AIR 1994 SC

57 20

AIR 1999 SC 625

45

AIR 2008 SC 1

60 V

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Bajoria v. The State Of West Bengal Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit Budhan Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar Chiranjitlal Chowdhri V. The Union Of India D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union Of India Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana v. State Of West Bengal Dr. B Singh V. Union Of India Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Others. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Others. G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council Gopal Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand, Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary Jitendra Ram @ Jitu v. State Of Jharkhand

AIR 1953 SC 404 1988 Supp SCC 604 AIR 1995 SC 191 AIR 1951 SC 41 AIR 1983 SC 130 (1994) 2 SCC 220

50 84 50 50 49 47

AIR 2004 SC 1923 1996 Indlaw SC 977 AIR 1999 SC 114

16 21 21

[1991] 2 AIR 1153 (SC) 2013 (3) SCC 444 (2013) 9 SCC 516 AIR 1993 SC 892 AIR 2006 SC 1993

K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand,

(1994) (6) SCC 620

11 75 52 14,15 83 18

Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau Of (1994) Supp (2) SCC 116 Investigation Kusum Lata v. Union Of India (2006) 6 SCC 180 M.C. Mehta V. Union Of India AIR 2004 SC 4618 Mohd. Ajmal Mohd. Amir Kasab v. State Of (2012) 9 SCC1 Maharashtra Ramjas Foundation v. Union Of India AIR 1993 SC 85 Ramprasad Narain Sahi v. The State Of Bihar AIR 1953 SC 215

18

Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State Of U.P (2006) 5 SCC 584 S.R. Bommai v. UOI, AIR 1994 SC 1918 Sachinand Pandey v. State Of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109 Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State Of Gujarat (2006) 2 SCC 359 Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. AIR 1958 SC 538 Tendolkar Stanford V. Kentucky 492 U.S. 361 (1989) State Of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah AIR 2000 SC 1296 State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Dharam Pal (2004) 9 SCC 681

87 11 6 69, 74 56

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Student’s Parent AIR 1985 SC 910 Medical College Shimla

13

State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh

AIR 2015 SC 102 2014 Indlaw SC 768

31 31

State Of Maharashtra v. Prabhu,

1994 (2) SCC 481

20

17 11 68 18 57

40 7 46

VI

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

State Of U.P. v. Shri Kishan State Of West Bengal & Ors. V. Committee For Protection Of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India The State Of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara The State Of Gujarat And Another v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. Thompson V. Oklahoma V. M. Syed Mohammad & Company v. The State Of Andhra Vishakha v. State Of Rajasthan X Minor Thr. Father Natural Guardian V. State

AIR 2005 SC 1250 AIR 2010 SC 1476

69 8

(2006) 6 SCC 180

19

AIR 1951 SC 318 (1974) 4 SCC 656

50 50

487 U.S. 815 (1988) 1954 (1) SCC 117

40 50

AIR 1997 SC 3011 2012 Cr LJ 4368

44 73

BOOKS BAKSHI P.M., The Constitution of India, 10th Edition,2012, Universal Law Publishing Co BASU DD, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol.-10,8th Edition, 2012, LexisNexis, ButterworthsWadhwa JAIN M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition, 2010, LexisNexis, ButterworthsWadhwa PANDEY J.N., The Constitutional Law of India, 48th Edition, 2013 ,Central Law Agency SHUKLA V.N., ‘Constitution of India’, 11th Edition,2012 Eastern Book Co SIDDIQUE, Ahmad ,Criminology problems and perspectives. 3rd edition, 1993, Eastern Book Company SINGH, R K, Juvenile delinquency in India, The Universal Publishing Ltd.,1998 TANENHAUS, David S., Juvenile justice, Oxford Uni. Press, New York, 2004 RANI, KUMKUM, Commentaries on the juvenile justice act, 1986,Alia Law Agency, 2001 BRANDT, DAVID, Delinquency, development, and social policy, Yale University Press, London, 2006 CHOUDHARY, R .N., Law relating of juvenile justice in India, Orient Publishing Company, Allahabad, 2005 RICHARD E.REDDING, Juvenile Deliquency, Oxford Uni. press,New York,2005 ARTICLES BALAKRISHNA, P , Juvenile Justice Act 1986 certain ambiguities in implementation – a critical study, Vol. 104, Criminal Law Journal,p.174, Nov. 1998 BALLAV DAS, Hrudaya, Changing concept to rights of child & juvenile justice, Human Rights Year Book, p 141,2009 BEDI, M S ,Coordination among juvenile justice functionaries, Vol. 16, Journal of Indian Law Institute, p 8-14, Jan- Jun 1995 VII

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

BURROW, John, Reverse waiver and the effects of legal, statutory and secondary legal factors on sentencing outcomes for juvenile offenders ,Vol. 54,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 34, Jan 2008 BUTTS, Jeffrey A & BUCK, Janeen, Sudden popularity of teen courts,Vol. 41,N Supreme Court Judges Journal, p 29, Winter, 2002o CHOUDHARY, D P, Promoting co-ordination within the implementation of juvenile justice act: Problems and remedies, Vol. 110,Part 1256,Criminal Law Journal, p 225, August 2004 DAM, Shubanker,Juvenile at eighty, Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol. 48, No. 2, April – June 2006, p 232) (ILI) DAVIS, Carle P, At-risk girls and delinquency: Career pathwary, Vol. 53,No.3Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 408, July 2007 DILLON, Rank R, Exploring the roles of parental monitoring of peers on relationship between family functioning and delinquency in the lives of African, American and Hispanic adolescent. Vol. 54,No.1,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 65, Jan 2008 DUCAN, Martha Grace ,So young and so untended: Remorseless children and the expectations of the law, Vol. 102,Columbia Law Review, p 1469, Oct 2002 GUBA, R K, Juvenile justice – certain inadequacies in law and enforcement, Vol 100,Criminal Law Journal, , p 46, June 1994 HARRISON, Paige & MAUPIN, James R, Teen court: An examination of processes and outcomes, Vol. 47, Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 243, April 2001 JAAMDAR, S, Bringing justice to juveniles: Extension of poverty alleviation programmes, Vol. 30,Economic & Political Weekly, p 1833 JADHAV, Mary Clubwala, Legislation for juvenile delinquency in India, Vol. 5,CBI Bulletin, p 23,1997 JAYARAM, C, Juvenile delinquency and law, Vol. 75 Social Defence, p 22,1984 KADRI, H A, Juvenile justice: Care and protection of children act-2000: An overview Vol. 110,Criminal Law Journal, p 225, July 2004 KHURSHID, Hasan, Juvenile delinquency Vol. 2 ,Nyaya Kiran, , p 50, Oct – Dec 2008 LEIBER, Michael J & JOHNSON, Joseph D, Being young and black: What are their effects on juvenile justice decision making Vol. 54,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 277,oct 2008 MALHOTRA, Saurabh, Juvenile justice system,Vol. 107,Criminal Law Journal, p 2-7, Jan 2001 OMAJI, P , Custodial sentencing in Australia’s juvenile justice system, Vol. 37,Journal of Indian Law Institute, p 483, October – December 1995 PANDA, B P, Rights of child juvenile delinquency and administration of justice,Vol. 1 Supreme Court Journal, p 31, Feb 1996 PANDE, B .B., Implications of the linkages between juvenile destitution labor and delinquency for juvenile justice in the contemporary Indian society,Vol. 14,Delhi Law Review, p 61,1992 PAVAL, K C, Juvenile justice: Victim of system,Vol. 44,Gujarat Law Reporter, ,p 157, November 2003 PULLMANN, Michel D, Juvenile offenders with mental health needs: Reducing recidivism using wraparound, Vol. 52,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 375,january 2006 RAHA, SWAGATA,Exploring community as a resource in the treatment of delinquency, Vol. 32, Indian Socio-Legal Journal, p 133,2006 VIII

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

RAHA, SWAGATA, Treatment of juveniles in conflict with law: Legal framework and the judicial response, Vol. 110, Criminal Law Journal, p J152, May 2004, RAI, Ram Bhajan, World inquiry in the juvenile justice act 1986 a source of confusion and misapplication, Vol. 105 ,Criminal Law Journal, p 49, April 1999 RATHI, B K, Juvenile justice. (Care and protection of children) act 2000: Does it require a fresh look, Vol. 109,Criminal Law Journal, , p 229, Aug 2003 RAZDAN, U, Apex court towards humanizing the administration of juvenile justice,Vol. 33,Journal of Indian Law Institute, p 366, July- September 1991 REDDY, C Sheela, Dimensions of juvenile crime: An Indian perspective, Vol. 7,South Asia Politics, p 29-35, Aug 2008 REDDY, S SRINIVAS, Juvenile justice: Not a child’s play,Vol. 6,Andhra Law Times, p 2832,2008 RICKARD, Erika, Paying lip service to the silenced: Juvenile justice in India, Vol. 21,Harvard Human Rights Journal, p 155, Winter 2008 SANGHI, G L, Children and the law, Law & Justice, NHRC Journal, p 71,2001 SARAN, KARTIKEYA, Juvenile justice : Protecting the “Child in need of care and protection,Vol. 114,Criminal Law Journal, p 277- 83, October 2008 SAXENA, Shaba ,Legal changes to curb youth criminality Vol. 3,Supreme Court Journal, p 35, November 1999 SINGH, P K, Juvenile justice (Care and protection of children) act, 2000: An enlightened step for tackling the child prostitution ,Vol. 31, Indian Bar Review, p 407-12, July-Dec 2004 TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, Lillian Juvenile justice and the law in Uganda: Towards restorative justice, Human Rights in Development Yearbook, p 291,2003 VED KUMARI, Current issues in juvenile justice in India, Vol. 41, Journal of Indian Law Institute, p 392, July- Dec 1999 VED KUMARI, Quagmire of age issues under the juvenile justice act: From inclusion to exclusion,Vol. 51,Journal of the Indian Law Institute, p 163, April – June 2009 VED KUMARI: Relevant date for applicability of the juvenile justice act., Vol 6,Supreme Court Cases (Journal),p 9,2009 DYNAMIC LINKS www.scconline .com www.westlaw.com www.manupatra.com www.judis.nic.in www.jstor.org

IX

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

CASE CONCERNING THE AGE OF JUVENILE DELIQUENTS

CHILD RIGHTS ADVOCACY FOUNDATION

…..Petitioner

v.

THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN

…..Respondent

The counsel for respondent has responded to the petition filed by petitioner under the epistolary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Hindustan by the way of public interest litigation under Art.321of constitution. The respondent most humbly submit themselves to the jurisdiction of Hon’ble court & shall bound by all orders, directions that this Hon’ble court may pass in exercise of the power conferred in its entirety& good faith. All of which is most respectfully submitted.

1

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.-(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

X

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background facts: The Republic of Hindustan is a country which is almost similar in population, geographical area, historical heritage, crime rate and culture as that of the Republic of India. Similarly, the Constitution of Hindustan and other prevailing domestic laws are in parimateria with the Republic of India, except in regard to the reduction of the age of juveniles. The Constitution of Hindustan contained various beneficial provisions for promoting and protecting the rights and interests of children. The Parliament of Hindustan enacted and put in place a law by name “The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000” with the laudable object of engendering welfare and wellbeing of juveniles. The print and electronic media in the Republic of Hindustan had blown out of proportion the incidents of offences of rape, murder, kidnapping, and similar such offences committed by juveniles against the girl child & women delineated a juvenile as a person not attaining the age of his/her 18th year of age. The survey shockingly and stupendously disclosed that a considerable number of such offences are committed against women by juveniles. Amendment in JJ(Care & Protection) Act, 2000: Consequently, the said Amendment was successfully made to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The said Amendment clearly provided that any juvenile in between the age of 16 to 18 years commits any offence of rape, murder, kidnapping, abduction and offences of such analogous nature then such offender shall be treated as an adult offender only. Resultantly, the punishment awarded would be the same like in the case of the adult offenders in similar such offences by treating the juveniles on par with the adult offenders. the lowering of the age of juveniles in regard to serious offences against women was imperative in the light of early maturity and precocity of the child in the era of globalization, easy access to crime and pornography in the internet and increasing incidents of rape, murder, kidnapping etc., committed by juveniles in every succeeding year, to add more deterrence to the existing law and changing face of juvenile laws across the world.

XI

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Petition filed by Child right Advocacy Foundation under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hindustan challenging the Amendments made to the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000.

XII

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS-STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT PETITION? 1.1 Whether the present petition detracts from the Constitutional principle of ‘separation of powers’? 1.2 Whether the petition have been filed mala fide for the sake of publicity? 2. WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER THAT THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT IS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS, CONSTITUTIONAL IDEALS, CORE PRINCIPLES OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS LEGALLY TENABLE? 2.1 Whether the amendment is commensurate with international covenants and other obligations? 2.2 Whether the amendment is honoring the core principles of justice, equality and Constitutional ideals? 3. WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT LOWERING OF THE AGE OF JUVENILES IN THE LIGHT OF SURVEY FINDINGS & EARLY PRECOCITY OF CHILD IS LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE? 3.1 Whether the amendment is in line with brooding national statistics and studies? 3.2 Whether the amendment is made in considering essential psychological aspect of children involved? 4. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT DEHUMANIZES THE CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS CONTENDED BY THE PETITIONER? 4.1 Whether the amendment dehumanizes the administration of justice to victims? 4.2 Whether the amendment increases the criminal activities by terrorists or gangs ? XIII

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1) WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS-STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT PETITION? 1.1 The present petition detracts from the Constitutional principle of ‘separation of powers’: Doctrine of separation of powers has expressly and impliedly enshrined under constitution of Hindustan, policy making and its implementation are conventionally regarded as the exclusive domain of the Executive and the Legislature. The said amendment is made in accordance with the set procedure established by law without any ground of violation 1.2 The petition have been filed mala fide: The petition has been filed by petition with malafide intention, the petitioner under cloak of unscrupulous busy body, having no interest expect personal gain of earning public eye and get exemplary monetary funding. The said amendment doesn’t violate any rights of children. 2) WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER THAT THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT IS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS,

CONSTITUTIONAL

IDEALS,

CORE

PRINCIPLES

OF

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS LEGALLY TENABLE? 2.1 The amendment is commensurate with international covenants and other obligations: The said amendment doesn’t violate any of the international covenants as there is no international obligation upon the state which explicitly renders the age of juvenile conflict with law as 18 years. Further, Republic of Hindustan is mere signatory to U.N Convention on the rights of children and has not ratified it. 2.2 The amendment is honoring the core principles of justice, equality and constitutional ideals: As time is not static, so the law can’t be stand still, yet the said amendment is need of the hour as the graph of heinous crime against the women is showing the upward trend. The law makers to curb the rise of gruesome crime rate and deter the juveniles to further commit crime has made a reasonable classification which has reasonable nexus to achieved taking the consideration of justice, equality and ideals of established act and judicial precedents. XIV

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

3) WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT LOWERING OF THE AGE OF JUVENILES IN THE LIGHT OF SURVEY FINDINGS & EARLY PRECOCITY OF CHILD IS LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE? 3.1 The amendment is in line with brooding national statistics and studies: The said amendment is in accordance with the statistics and survey findings as the crime committed by juvenile has significantly increased also the neuroscience studies are general and probabilistic in nature due to which aspect of intent which differs from case to case cannot be evaluated. 3.2 The amendment is made in considering essential psychological aspect of children involved: Adolescent mature intellectually before they mature socially or emotionally. Puberty is now kicking in at an earlier age, addictive substances also adversely affect brain development and maturation in the areas related to motivation, judgment and self control. A child of age 16 with his exposure to internet, mass media and firearms is as much aware and informed as an adult and there is not much possibility of reforming such accused. Therefore, the said amendment is at par in today’s global society. 4) WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT DEHUMANIZES THE CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS CONTENDED BY THE PETITIONER? 4.1 The amendment is done to provide justice to the victim and deter the criminals: The amendment has been bought forth in order to cater justice to the victims of the crimes by the acts of juveniles and to deter the juveniles further from indulging in any criminal activity. 4.2 The amendment is done to keep a check on use of juveniles by the terrorists, gangs etc.: With the high rise in the involvement of juveniles in terrorist and anti-state activities, the said amendment is a measure to control the use of juveniles by the Crime syndicates who are taking due advantage of the juvenile age and increasingly involving younger boys in heinous crimes and keeping them in the forefront, knowing fully well that they cannot be punished.

XV

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1. Whether the petitioner has locus-standi to file the present petition? Respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that petitioner has no locus-standi to file the present petition under the Article 322 of the constitution. Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. The said amendment under JJCPA, 2000 is stemming from the need to ensure public safety and provide justice to victims. There cannot be any dispute on the society’s need to be safe, and juvenile crimes need to be prevented. Statistics do certainly reveal an increasing trend in the rate of crime by juvenile in the country. A study of crime rate in the past decade shows that the even though the percentage of juvenile crime compared to total crime has increased by a mere 0.7% over a span of 10 years, the percentage of juveniles committing the offence of rape

has increased by

an alarming 53%.3

‘Time is not static’. Time Changes and therefore, the life of a nation is not static, but dynamic; living and organic; its political, social and economic condition change continuously. It is, therefore, quite possible that an act which drafted in one era and in a particular context may be found inadequate in another era and another context. The ideas upon which an act is based in one generation may be spurned as old fashioned in the next generation. It thus becomes necessary to amend the act time to time. Our constitution empowers the legislature to make the law as per the dynamic society. The said amendment is therefore valid as legislature always makes laws which cater needs of its people and always act upon the will of society. At present when there is upward trend in heinous crimes committed by juvenile delinquents the said amendment tries to curb crime rate by treating juvenile between 16-18 year as adult offenders, to provide them sniffer punishments and protect the society from outrage of barbarous crimes committed by them. The said amendment is valid and the petition is not maintainable on following ground:

2

Ibid NCRB, Crimes in India, chapter 5, Report on crime against women,2013, at www.ncrb.gov.in, last accessed on 72-2015. 3

1

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

1.1 Detracts from the Constitutional principle of ‘separation of powers’ The framers of our Constitution did not incorporate a strict doctrine of separation of powers but envisaged a system of checks and balances. Policy making and its implementation are conventionally regarded as the exclusive domain of the Executive and the Legislature. The power of judicial review cannot be used by the court to usurp the powers of other organs. For instance, Article 53(1)4 expressly vests the executive power of the union in the President, and Article 505 clearly states that the State should take necessary steps to separate judiciary from the executive. ‘Separation of Power’ is one of the basic features of the our Constitution, it has also been stated under Indian constitution, which has been rightly declared by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sachinand Pandey v. State of West Bengal6 as per Khalid,J."if the constitution of India has stood the test of 42 years of existence, it is because the three pillars of democracy has by and large respected the jurisdiction of each other, instances of conflict between the have been rare”, State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah.7 Today, the doctrine of separation of powers has strong footing in the constitutional jurisprudence in India. State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors8, : “It is trite that in the constitutional scheme adopted in India, besides supremacy of the constitution, the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary constitutes the basic features of the Constitution.” Balancing a double-edged Sword The power of the Court to entertain any circumstance that may hinder societal growth, or may cause hardship to a class of individuals is not uninhibited. It is carefully regulated with tight reins, and cases of public interest are taken up only after rigorous scrutiny. The said amendment has been cautiously passed by the law makers for the National growth. As said by Pandit Nehru that they have made the

4

Art.53. Executive power of the Union.-(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinates to him in accordance with this Constitution. 5 Art.50. Separation of judiciary from executive.-The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. 6 AIR 1987 SC 1109 7 AIR 2000 SC 1296 8 AIR 2010 SC 1476

2

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Constitution of India flexible so that it will help in growth of nation.9 The provision for amendment of Constitution is given while making the Constitution so that in future when required to change it, an amendment can be made by the legislature that is representatives of the people. Also, judicial review has certain inherent limitations. In Amar Singh and Ors. Etc. v. The State of Bihar And Ors. Etc10, it was held ‘The power of judicial review of legislative Acts vested in the High Courts and Supreme Court must be exercised with wisdom, and restraint and not in a spirit of cold war between Parliament, or State Legislatures and courts. Non-interference with the view of the majority in Parliament with regard to what is reasonable and interference with what is prohibited by the Constitution may perhaps, be harmonious path for the future.’ It is suited more for adjudication of disputes than for performing administrative functions. It is for the executive to administer the law and the function of the judiciary is to ensure that government carries out its duty in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.11 The amendment enacted by the respondent are within the Constitutional limits and the executive has carried out its functions acc. to the provisions of the Constitution.

1.2 No PILL for ILL It is submitted that, as rightly said by Soli Sorabjee that PIL is not a pill for every ill therefore petitioner doesn’t have any locus standi. Respondents want to contend that petitioner are trying to obstruct this process and are working under mala fide. PIL should not be used to grind a personal axe12 This Hon’ble court has itself cautioned that PIL is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and public grievance should not encroach upon the rights and powers reserved by the constitution to the executive and the legislature13 PIL gives the right to locus standi to any member of the public who is working under bona fide but who is not a mere

9

DD Basu , Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th Edition, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur 2012,p 11260 10 [2007] 2 BLJR 2575 11 S.R. Bommai v. UOI, AIR 1994 SC 1918;G.B. Mahajan vs. Jalgaon Municipal council [1991] 2 AIR 1153 (SC), M.C. Mehta v. UOI, AIR 2004 SC 4618 12 Jain.M.P.,Indian Consitutional Law,7th Edition,Lexis Nexis,2014 13 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Student’s Parent Medical College Shimla, AIR 1985 SC 910

3

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

busy body or a meddlesome interloper.14 Dominant object of PIL is to ensure observance of the provisions of constitutions or the law which can be achieved to advance the cause of community by permitting any person, having no personal gain or private motivation or any other oblique consideration but acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress.15 In Dr. B Singh v. Union of India16,the Supreme Court held that in admitting PILs the Court has to take into account the two important points, viz.(i) Nobody should indulge in wild and reckless allegation besmirching the character of others; and (ii) Avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions filed for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation".17 There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking18. It is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.19The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good.20No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a license

14

Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892 Ibid, para 68 16 AIR 2004 SC 1923. 17 Kusum Lata v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 180 18 Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 116;Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 85; K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620 19 T.N. Godavarman thirumulpad v. Union of India ,(2006) 6 SCC 180 20 State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481; Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2151 15

4

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.21 In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India22, it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. It has also left the following note of caution: "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective." The above filed petition is prima facie malafide, the petitioner under cloak of unscrupulous busy body, having no interest expect personal gain of earning public eye and get exemplary monetary funding. They came before this Hon’ble court in glare of publicity by filing vexatious and frivolous petition wearing the mask of public interest .The said amendment doesn’t violate any of fundamental rights and ideals of constitution it has been passed by the competent pillar of democracy under the head of its legislative power. The said amendment is a reasonable classification done by our law makers with the nexus to curb the upward crime trend committed by young juvenile offenders of brutal nature against the women and society as whole.

2. Whether the contention advanced by the petitioner that the impugned Amendment is against the International covenants, constitutional ideals, core principles of juvenile justice and established judicial precedents is legally tenable? The respondents humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that contention advanced by the petitioner that the impugned Amendment is against the International covenants, constitutional

21

Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, 1996 Indlaw SC 977, Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others. AIR 1999 SC 114 22 AIR 1982 SC 149,para 23

5

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

ideals, core principles of juvenile justice and established judicial precedents is not legally tenable. Mere facial gender neutral laws and policies cannot deny what has perceptively called “…..differential access to justice faced by women seeking to engage with the legal system…..”23 Violence against society has a dual characteristic and is an offence under the principles of penology but, more importantly, it is a direct constitutional violation. The number of constitutional violations in our country assumes great importance as they have a bearing upon the true meaning of democracy, the true meaning of republic, and the true meaning of social justice. In the context of women, and in the context of persons with disabilities, the role of the State as a guarantor of fundamental rights in respect of the latter, the role of the State as Parens Patriae is fundamental to the Constitution. A fortiori, the duty of the State, therefore, is to provide a safe environment, at all times, especially for women, who constitute half the nation’s population; and failure in discharging this public duty renders it accountable for the lapse. Crimes against society are an egregious violation of several human rights demanding strict punishment with deterrence blushed to prevent similar crimes in future by the likeminded. The said amendment is passed by competent lawmakers who caters to needs of its people and fulfill all its obligations rendering the ideals of natural justice to all. The said amendment is in conformity with core principles of international conventions, constitution ideals and object of juvenile justice; this can be expounded below: 2.1 In accordance with established international conventions The South African law defines equality as both de jure and de facto equality. It has provided that: “Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms as contemplated in the Constitution and includes de jure and de facto equality and also equality in terms of the outcomes.”24

23

Report of Verma Committee on Amendments To Criminal Law, pg. no. 65 at http://nlrd.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/121798698-Justice-Verma-Committee-report.pdf, last accessed on 15-2-2015.

6

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Similarly, when any heinous crime is committed by a juvenile, the consequences of such acts are disastrous and brutal in nature and by providing immunity through JJCPA, 2000 to the offender is unjust towards the victim. Rule 1.225 of the Havana Rules, 199026 provide that a juvenile should be deprived of his/her liberty only as a measure of the last resort limited to exceptional cases and for the min. necessary period. Even then, detention should be in such a manner and in conditions that respect the human rights of juveniles (Rule 1227). Rule 11(a)28 of the Havana Rules, 1990 define a juvenile as every person under the age of 18, and allow national laws to determine a min. age below which such person will not be detained. Further under Rule 1929 of the UN Standard Min. Rules for the administration of Juvenile Justice30 aims at restricting institutionalization in quantity and in time it lays down that the placement of juveniles in an institution 

Shall always be a disposition of last resort, which implies that treating juveniles as adult offender is not restricted by UN Standard Min. Rules also.



and for the min. necessary period, one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which commensurate with gravity, nature of crime and the

24

Ibid para39 Juveniles should only be deprived of their liberty in accordance with the principles and procedures set forth in these Rules and in the United Nations Standard Min. Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules). Deprivation of the liberty of a juvenile should be a disposition of last resort and for the min. necessary period and should be limited to exceptional cases. The length of the sanction should be determined by the judicial authority, without precluding the possibility of his or her early release. 26 Havana Rules were adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990. 27 The deprivation of liberty should be effected in conditions and circumstances which ensure respect for the human rights of juveniles. Juveniles detained in facilities should be guaranteed the benefit of meaningful activities and programs which would serve to promote and sustain their health and self respect, to foster their sense of responsibility and encourage those attitudes and skills that will assist them in developing their potential as members of society. 28 A juvenile is every person under the age of 18. The age limit below which it should not be permitted to deprive a child of his or her liberty should be determined by law. 29 Rule 19-The placement of a juvenile in an institution shall always be a disposition of last resort and for the min. necessary period. 30 Often referred to as the Beijing Rules, is a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly regarding the treatment of juvenile prisoners and offenders in member nations, was adopted on 29 November 1985 by the United Nations General Assembly 25

7

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

manner in which the offence is committed31, it can also be implied that in case of heinous crimes the min. period should be decided on the basis of the gravity of the case and punishment should not be restricted to 3 years for rehabilitation, as it can neither restore the criminal nor the victim. Further, Art. 1932 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)33 implies that state have an authority to take appropriate action to protect the interest of the society as a whole by protecting rights of both victim and the juvenile who commits heinous crimes by keeping juvenile under care with any other person, and where any other person can be inferred as imprisonment of the juvenile keeping in mind the maturity level of the offender. Under Art.14(d) of The Declaration on Elimination of Violence against Women34, it is provided that: “….State should pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating violence against women and, to this end should develop penal, civil, labor and administrative sanction and domestic legislation to punish and redress wrongs caused to women...” Also our country alike government of India has made the commitment at the Fourth World Conference in Beijing35 to “formulate and operationalize a national policy on women, which will continuously guide an informed action at every level and at every sector”, so inspite of making offender centric, government need to make victim centric laws as by providing immunity to the young criminals in the name of protection of child rights are actually infringing the rights of the victim as a women and the society as whole. Victim's plight cannot be ignored even when

31

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu, AIR 2015 SC 102; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh,2014 Indlaw SC 768 32 Art. 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) mandates that the State shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child in all respects, while in the care of parents etc. or any other person 33 The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature on 20 November 1989. It came into force on 2 September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. 34 The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women was adopted without vote by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 48/104 of 20 December 1993. 35 Fourth World Conference on Women, action for Equality, Development and Peace was the name given for a conference convened by the United Nations on 4–15 September 1995 in Beijing, China.

8

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

a crime goes unpunished for want of adequate evidence.36 State is under the obligation to protect the rights of women and the said amendment is a step towards it, which is appreciated by various other nations like California Proposition 2137, enacted by voter initiative, which lowered the age for transfer from 16 to 14 and shifted discretion for making transfer decisions from juvenile court judges to prosecutors (Gang Violence & Juvenile Crime Prevention Act, 2000). Art. 40 of the U.N. Convention38 provides that a child who has been accused of having violated the penal law shall have the following guarantees: 

to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law,



to be informed promptly of the charges against him



And, to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation of his defense, to have the matter determined without delay by a competent and impartial authority or judicial body, not to be compelled to confess guilty, and to examine witnesses.

Moreover, the state can establish a min. age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law. In short, the U.N. Convention does not prohibit prosecuting a child under 18 who has committed an offence under the regular penal laws. Rule 17 of the Beijing Rules39, in turn, provides that the reaction shall be in proportion to the circumstances and the gravity of the offence as well as the circumstances and needs of the juvenile as well as the needs of society. Furthermore, personal liberty may be deprived if the juvenile is adjudicated guilty of a serious offence involving violence against another person or persistence in committing other serious offences. Unlike the U.N. Convention, the Beijing Rules do not fix 18 as the age of a juvenile. Instead, the Beijing Rules provide for rules applicable to persons between the age of 7 and 18.

36

Manohar Singh v State of Rajasthan and others, 2015 Indlaw SC 31

37

Proposition 21 of California's laws: Juveniles 14 years of age or older charged with committing certain types of murder or a serious sex offense, under Prop 21, are generally no longer eligible for juvenile court and prosecutors are allowed to directly file charges against juvenile offenders in adult court for a variety of circumstances without having to get the permission of juvenile court to do that. 38 39

Supra note 7 Supra note 4

9

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Therefore, country’s international legal obligations do not prohibit it from amending the JJCPA, 2000 to provide that persons between the age of 16-18 who are accused of rape, kidnapping and abduction of women and girls will be exempted from the jurisdiction of the JJB and tried in the adult criminal justice system. Comparing the position in USA and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 1974, reliance is placed on the common law age of 7 in fixing the age of criminal responsibility, the lowest being 6 years in North Carolin. The general practice in the United States of America, however, is that even for such children, the courts are entitled to impose life sentences in respect of certain types of offences, but such life sentences without parole were not permitted for those under the age of eighteen years convicted of murder or offences involving violent crimes and weapons violations. It was contented that min. age for death penalty is set at 1640. Also in England and Wales, Section 16(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, the min. age of criminal responsibility is 10 years and those below the said age are considered to be doli incapax and, thus, incapable of having any mens rea, which is similar to the provisions of Section 82 and 83 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. In France no criminal charge can be brought against a child up to the age of ten years; and for child between ten to thirteen years of age, only educational penalties such as placing in a specialized Centre or home are to be given, while between thirteen to sixteen years of age, minors will get only half of the adult sentence. Lastly, between sixteen to eighteen years of age, person would be remanded to Criminal Court and plea of juvenility can be set aside. In Canada there is Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2003, where the age of criminal responsibility has been fixed at 12 years and Section 13 of the Criminal Code of Canada, is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 8341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In fact, according to the Criminal Justice Delivery System in Canada, a youth between the age of 14 to 17 years may be tried and

40

Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988); Stanford v. Kentucky 492 U.S. 361 (1989)

41

Section 83 in The Indian Penal Code- Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.— Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

10

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

sentenced as an adult in certain situations. Even in Canada the Youth Criminal Justice Act governs the application of criminal and correctional law to those who are twelve years old or older, but younger than 18 at the time of committing the offence, and that, although, trials were to take place in a Youth Court, for certain offences and in certain circumstances, a youth may be awarded an adult sentence. Also in, Michigan’s Juvenile Waiver Law passed in 1997; juveniles can automatically be tried as adults. The juvenile who commits crime of high gravity should not be left to walk free after serving max. of 3 years that too in special home. It is high time that the law should be amended on the same footing of countries like U.S, U.K etc where a juvenile is also tried in a criminal court depending on the gravity of the offence committed by the minor. It was submitted by the SC in the “Bombay Blasts Case”42, that, juvenile who was tried and convicted along with adults under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), was denied the protection of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, on account of the serious nature of the offence, it was noted that paragraph 4 of the 1989 Convention did not make any reference to age.43 Therefore it can be said that the JJCPA, 2000 law had exceeded its mandate by blindly adopting eighteen as the upper limit in categorizing a juvenile or a child, in accordance with the Beijing Rules, 1985, and the U.N. Convention, 1989, without taking into account the socio-cultural economic conditions and the legal system for administration of criminal justice in our country. 1.2. In accordance with core principles of equality, justice and constitutional ideals Some of basic values and objectives that provide basis and direction to Governmental policy decisions are 

Justice:

42

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (2011) 11 SCC 214, point 10 The United Nations Standard Min. Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) Rule4. Age of criminal responsibility- 4.1 In those legal systems recognizing the concept of the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity.

43

11

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

The message of socio-economic justice mentioned in the preamble of our Constitution has been translated into several Articles enshrined in part-III and part- IV of the Constitution. Therefore, the said amendment is in the light of justice. The right to be protected from sexual harassment and sexual assault44 is, guaranteed by the Constitution, and is one of the pillars on which the very construct of gender justice stands. 45 Also, the offence of an attempt to commit rape is a serious offence, as ultimately if translated into the act leads to an assault on the most valuable possession of a victim i.e. character, reputation, dignity and honour, any attempt to misbehave or sexually assault a woman is one of the most depraved acts. The courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the ground of sympathy or delay, as this is no ground for reduction of sentence.46 The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.47 

Equality: Art. 1448 permits reasonable classification and must fulfill the following two conditions49:1. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. 2. The differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.

44

Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625. 46 Ajahar Ali V. State of West Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dharam Pal, (2004) 9 SCC 681 47 Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220 48 The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 49 D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union Of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 45

12

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Where the court finds that the classification50 satisfies the tests, the court will uphold the validity of the law. A classification is over-inclusive when it includes not only those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose but also others who are not so situated.51 The classification/definition for all juvenile offenders up to the age of 18 years, providing blanket cover/protection against all and every offence committed, unmindful of the (i)

nature and gravity of the offence52

(ii)

actual age and mental maturity level of juvenile offender

(iii)

socio-economic background of the juvenile

(iv)

nature and character of the juvenile

(v)

rights of the victim of offence committed by the juvenile and

(vi)

taking away of the judicial discretion in totality and absolutely in case of offence committed by the juvenile, is highly irrational and has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved and is contrary to and in violation of the Art. 1453 and 2154 of the Constitution and is accordingly, unconstitutional.

It was reiterated that it was unconstitutional to place all juveniles, irrespective of the gravity of the offences, in one bracket. It is urged that Section 2(l)55 of the JJCPCA, 2000, ought not to have placed all children in conflict with law within the same bracket, it is submitted that the same is ultra vires Art. 21 and Art. 14 of our Constitution. A statute may direct its provisions against one individual person or thing or to several individual persons or things but, no reasonable basis of classification may appear on the face of it or be

50

Bajoria v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404, ;Budhan Choudhary v. The State of Bihar AIR 1995 SC 191;Chiranjitlal Chowdhri v. The Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41, ;V. M. Syed Mohammad & Company v. The State of Andhra 1954 (1) SCR 117, ;The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318 51 The State Of Gujarat And Another v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., (1974) 4 SCC 656 52 Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516 53 Ibid 23 54 Protection Of Life And Personal Liberty-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 55 In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- "juvenile in conflict with law" means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence;

13

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

deductible from the surrounding circumstances, or matters of common knowledge56. In such a case the court will strike down the law as an instance of naked discrimination57. The Constitution embraces the substantive equality approach as provided in Art. 15(1)58 and Art. 15(3).59 We are also convinced that the concept of formative action under Art. 15(3) is not merely an enabling provision but, in the context of Art. 14, may be a mandatory obligation. Equality means not only facial equality but de facto equality .60  .

Liberty

“Alarming rise in heinous crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault on women and dacoity have

impinged upon the right to life and the right to live in a safe environment which are within the contours of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India”.61 Under Art. 21 of the Constitution, every citizen has a fundamental right to live in dignity and peace, without being subjected to violence by other members of society and that by shielding juveniles, who were fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, from the sentences, as could be awarded under the Indian Penal Code, as far as adults are concerned, the State was creating a class of citizens who were not only prone to criminal activity, but in whose cases restoration or rehabilitation was not possible. . The concept of dignity under Art. 21 is also significant and it must be noticed that it is conjoined by the preceding expression ‘right to life’ and any form of violence or assault, sexual or otherwise, on women is a violation of the fundamental right to live with dignity.

56

Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538 Ameerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum AIR 1953 SC 91 , Ramprasad Narain Sahi v. The State of Bihar A.I.R 1953 S.C. 215 58 Article 15 of Constitution of India deals with Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth- (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. 59 Article 15 of Constitution of India deals with Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth- Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. 60 Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India AIR 2008 SC 1, 61 Avishek Goenka v. Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 321 57

14

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, puts a blanket ban on the power of the criminal courts to try a juvenile offender for offences committed under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, therefore it should be struck down to the extent it is unconstitutional and void. Section 2(1)(d) in The Protection of Human Rights Act, 199362 says “human rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. The National Human Rights Commission63, in its Preliminary Report by JS Verma in 2002 has also held the Government accountable and responsible for the violation of human rights within its jurisdiction, observing it is the primary and inescapable responsibility of the State to protect the right to life, liberty, equality and dignity of all of those who constitute it. It is also the responsibility of the State to ensure that such rights are not violated either through overt acts, or through abetment or negligence. It is a clear and emerging principle of human rights jurisprudence that the State is responsible not only for the acts of its own agents, but also for the acts of non-State players acting within its jurisdiction. The State is, in addition, responsible for any inaction that may cause or facilitate the violation of human rights. In the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 1664 of the Act, Parliament had recognized the distinction between a juvenile, who had attained the age of sixteen years, but had committed an offence which was so serious in nature that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other juveniles in a special home, to send him to such special home. Considering that none of the other measures provided under the Act was suitable or sufficient, the Government had 62

An Act to provide for the constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or Incidental thereto. Came into force on 8th January,1994. 63 NHRC of India is an autonomous public body constituted on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Ordinance of 28 September 1993. It was given a statutory basis by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 ( amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006) 64 Order that may not be passed against juvenile.- (1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security: Provided that where a juvenile who has attained the age of sixteen years has committed an offence and the Board is satisfied that the offence committed is of so serious in nature or that his conduct and behavior have been such that it would not be in hi interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of the other measures provided under this Act is suitable or sufficient, the Board may order the juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the State Government

15

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

empowered the Board to pass an order for the juvenile to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as it thought fit.65 Therefore it can be interpreted that juvenile can be imprisoned if the authority permit so and that no objection could be taken to the Section 16 (1), except in the proviso to Section 16(2), it has been added that the period of detention order would not exceed, in any case, the max. limit of punishment, as provided under Section 15, which is 3years. In view of the provisions of Section 1566 and 1667 of the JJCPA, 2000, children, as defined in the above Act, were not only taking advantage of the same but were also being used by criminals for their own ends (like in case of Kasab68 though he was no able to prove his juvenility) ,also after being awarded a max. sentence of three years, a juvenile convicted of heinous offences, was almost likely to become a monster in society and pose a great danger to others, in view of his criminal propensities. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law.69 Section 1970 of JJCPA, 2000, which provides for the removal of any disqualification attached to an offence of any nature, the said provisions do not take into account the fact relating to repeated offences being perpetrated by a juvenile whose records of previous offences are removed. Section 19 of the Act was required to be amended to enable the concerned authorities to retain records of previous offences committed by a juvenile for the purposes of identification of a juvenile with a propensity to repeatedly commit offences of a grievous or heinous nature, as it would enable the authorities concerned to assess the criminal propensity of an individual, which would call for a different approach to be taken at the time of inquiry

65

Paper on Age of Criminal Responsibility of Juvenile in India vis-a-vis Global Scenario: A Critical Review, Indian Acad Forensic Med. July-September 2013, Vol. 35, No. 3 66 Section 15 of juvenile justice(care and protection )act,2000 67 Section 16 of juvenile justice(care and protection )act,2000 68 Mohd. Ajmal Mohd. Amir Kasab v. State Of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC1 69 Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 2 SCC 359, State of U.P. v. Shri Kishan, AIR 2005 SC 1250 70 Section 19- Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. (2) The Board shall make an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.

16

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

That Section 2871 of JJCPA, 2000 be interpreted in terms of its definition, i.e., alternative punishment and serious offences having min. punishment of 7 years imprisonment and above be brought outside its purview and the same should be tried by an ordinary criminal court. Section 52(2)(a)72 of JJCPA,2000, the interpretation of the act would be contrary to the fundamental principle of right of access to justice because the right of appeal is limited as no appeal against an acquittal lies, also the word ‘aggrieved person’ in the particular Section if referred to ‘juvenile in conflict with the law’ would be a restrictive meaning because if legislative had so intended, it would have then used the words ‘juvenile in conflict with the law’ and not ‘any person aggrieved’.73 Law as a cornerstone of the edifice of ‘order’ should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: ‘State of criminal law continues to be— as it should be—a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.74 Republic of Hindustan is not bound by the International Conventions as it is only a signatory to it and also the age limit in the JJCPA, 2000 is arbitrary in nature, also court must keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime as well as of the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment for such heinous acts by juveniles under the age of 16 to 18 as they are mature enough to know the consequences of their brutal acts. The time went far behind when children were considered innocent and immature, now justice can be achieved only through deterrence as “the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence”75 3. Whether the contention advanced by the respondent that lowering of the age of Juveniles in the light of survey findings & early precocity of child is legally sustainable?

71

Section 28 - Alternative punishment.- Where an act or omission constitute an offence punishable under this Act and also under any other Central or State Act, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offences shall be liable to punishment only under such Act as provides for punishment which is greater in degree. 72 Section 52(2)(a) - No appeal shall lie from any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence 73 X Minor Thr. Father Natural Guardian v. State 2012 Cr LJ 4368 74 Supra note 69 75 Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (3) SCC 444

17

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

The respondents humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that the contention advanced by the respondent that lowering of the age of Juveniles in the light of survey findings & early precocity of child is legally sustainable, as it is truly said “no longer could this child be called sweet and loving rather surly and antagonistic would be better descriptors.”76 3.1 In accordance with the statistics: As per the reports of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) entitled Crime in India “2011” and Crime in India “2012”, the percentage of crimes committed by juveniles as compared to total crimes has significantly increased from 2001-2012. Crime in India “2012” records that the total number of rapes committed by juveniles more than doubled from 485 in 2002 to 1149 in 2011. As the data suggests, between 2011 and 2012 alone, there was a massive increase in instances of rape by juveniles by nearly 300, which is almost as much as the increase in such cases over the entire previous decade. This increase alone makes amendment of the JJA imperative. Also the juveniles in conflict with law (IPC crimes77) in 2013 have increased by 13.6% over 2012 as 27,936 IPC crimes by juveniles were registered during 2012 which increased to 31,725 cases in 2013. 1,330 juveniles were apprehended in the age-group of 7-12 years, 13,346 juveniles were apprehended in the age-group of 12-16 years during 2013 whereas bulk of juveniles apprehended (28,830) were under the age-group of 16-18 years. The percentage shares of Juveniles apprehended under these age groups were 3.1%, 30.7% and 66.3% respectively.78 3.2 Myth that crimes are committed only by economically, personally, and educationally weak juveniles Even the argument that broken families and children without parents lead to more juveniles taking to crime falls flat if the NCRB data is any indication. It shows that in 2011, only 5.7% of all juveniles arrested were found to be homeless. The rest either stayed with their parents (81.3%) or relatives.

76

The Adolescent Brain: A Work in Progress http://patwolfe.com/2011/09/the-adolescent-brain-a-work-in-progress/ Offences under Indian Penal Code,1860 78 National Crime Record Bureau Ministry Of Home Affairs, Crime In India 2013 Compendium 77

18

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Regard educational background, the report stated that 146 of them were illiterate, 330 primary pass outs, 471 had above primary education and 477 matriculate and above. Besides, 1302 of them were living with parents, 97 with guardians and 25 homeless. Juvenile delinquency is not limited to the lower strata of society. 3.3 Ignorance of mens rea Laws of Republic Of Hindustan are in parimateria with the laws of the Republic of Indian therefore under Indian Penal Code79 a child over 12 years does not enjoy any privilege of immunity from penal liability whereas the same child under Juvenile justice Act is exempted from penal liability except under certain situations, even though the mens rea is quite visible in the doing of an act by the child. Even in English law a child between ten to fourteen years do not enjoy absolute immunity80 although he or she is treated as doli incapax81. Hence at fourteen a person comes under full criminal responsibility82 Now time is changed, minors commits serious crime in well planned manner, destroys evidence so cannot be held guilty, Such modus operandi reveals minor is well trained, intelligent enough to hide the crime. In such scenario need of the hour is to reduce age limit of minor /juvenile, so to control crime. Time has forced government to amend the rules on sexual assault, so time is ripe to reduce age of juvenile. No fixed norm had been laid down by the Act for the age determination of a person and the plea of the juvenile must be judged strictly on its own merit The Medical evidence as to the age of a person, though a very useful guiding factor, is not conclusive and has to be considered along with other cogent evidence83 The court has to determine the age keeping in view a large number of factors.84 3.4 In accordance with the studies: 79

Indian Penal Code is the main criminal code of India. It is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The code was drafted in 1860 on the recommendations of first law commission of India established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833. 80 Kenny’s outline of criminal law,1966. p.79, see also Cross and Jone’s Introduction to Criminal Law Ed.1976 (Butterworths), p.65 81

Administration of criminal justice : the correctional services, Deep & Deep Publications,1997, New Delhi Kenny’s outline of criminal law, 1966, p.80 83 Jitendra ram @ jitu v. state of Jharkhand AIR 2006 SC 1993 84 Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit 1988 Supp SCC 604 82

19

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Various studies have marked early precocity in child in today’s era of development and globalization where child have easy access to internet, complicated mind games and all resources at par with other developed nations. 3.4.1 Neuroscience general not specific: Adolescent brain science has had, is likely to have, and should have only moderate impact in the courts. Neuroscience does not materially shape legal decision makers’ beliefs and values about youthful offenders but instead will be read through the lens of those beliefs and values.85 Developmental neuroscience supports only probabilistic generalizations about youth as a class; it is unhelpful in making highly individualized determinations such as formation of intent.86 Determination of the date of birth of a person before a court of law, whether in a civil proceeding or a criminal proceeding, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Such a date of birth has to be determined on the basis of the materials on records.87 3.4.2

Early Maturity:

Adolescents mature intellectually before they mature socially or emotionally. Reward sensitivity, preference for immediate rewards, sensation-seeking, and a greater focus on the rewards of a risky choice all increase between pre-adolescence and mid-adolescence, peak between ages 15 and 17, and then decline.88 Sir Matthew Hale’s analysis of the infancy defense in the seventeenth century divided children into four categories: under seven (deemed doli incapax), seven to eleven (subject to a rebuttable presumption of incapacity), twelve to fourteen (subject to a weaker presumption of incapacity), and those over fourteen (held criminally responsible for their actions).89

85

Terry A. Maroney , The False Promise Of Adolescent Brain Science In Juvenile Justice, Vol. 85, Notre Dame Law Review, p. 89, 2010 86 Ibid, para 2, p.94 87 Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 584 88 Laurence Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy, Issues In Science And Technology, Spring 2012, p.74 89 Lara A. Bazelon, Note, Exploding the Superpredator Myth, Why Infancy Is the Preadolescent’s Best Defense in Juvenile Court, 75 N.Y.U. L. REV. 159, 168-69 (2000).

20

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Adolescence has always been troubled, but for reasons that are somewhat mysterious, puberty is now kicking in at an earlier and earlier age.90 By most accounts, puberty—the process through which children become adolescents and adolescents become adults—is entered and ended far earlier, on average, than several centuries ago and measurably earlier than even several decades ago. Moreover, the most studied mediators of puberty—sex hormones and growth hormones— affect not only somatic characteristics and capabilities but, no less profoundly, behavior.91 3.4.3 Use of addictive substance acting as catalyst Addictive substances also adversely affect brain development and maturation in the areas related to motivation, judgment, inhibition and self control.92 As a result, addictive substances impair the judgment of teens in the face of potential rewards, leading not only to their engagement in risky behaviors such as driving while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs or participating in unsafe sexual practices, but also to continued use of addictive substances despite negative consequences. The age differences are more consistently observed when individuals are anticipating rewards than when they are receiving them, heightened sensitivity to anticipated rewards motivates adolescents to engage in acts, even risky acts, when the potential for pleasure is high, such as with unprotected sex, fast driving, or experimentation with drugs, the age at peak human fecundity (that is, the age at which an individual should begin having sex if he or she wants to have the most children possible) is about the same as the age at the peak of risk-taking—between 16 and 17 years of age 93 3.4.4 Easy access to technology and firearms

90 What's Wrong With the Teenage Mind? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203806504577181351486558984 last accessed on 2/02/2015 at 6 pm. 91 Robert Hunt, The Missing Politics and Unsettled Science of the Trend Toward Earlier Puberty, journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, p. 43-66, Mar 2001 92 Adolescent Substance Use: America’s #1 Public Health Problem," The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, June 2011), p. 13 93 Laurence Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy, Issues In Science And Technology, Spring 2012, p.72

21

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

A child of age 16 with his exposure to internet and mass media is as much aware and informed as an adult and there is not much possibility of reforming such accused because of their mental development, some of the negative effects of technology which leads to delinquent behavior of a child are: 

Isolation: Youths have isolated themselves by walking around in their own little world, listening to their iPods or staring at the screen of the latest mobile device even when they are around other person which further leads to depression. The use of technology has caused an increase in bullying94 through which youngsters indirectly and intentionally tries to harm another, and has escalated the degree of severity.



Lack of Sexual Boundaries: Exposure to sexual content is more likely to happen at a much younger age. Sexually reactive children and adolescents (SRCAs), sometimes referred to as juvenile sexual offenders, may be more vulnerable and likely to experience damaging effects from pornography use because they are a high-risk group for a variety of aggressive behaviors95



Lack of Empathy: The constant stream of violent scenes on video games, TV, movies etc. causes youth become desensitized to destruction of any kind. The typical American child will view more than 200,000 acts of violence, including more than 16,000 murders before age 18.96 Adolescent may come to see violence as a fact of life and, over time, lose their ability to empathize with both the victim and the victimizer.

3.4.5 Crime of aggression97: Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in 94

Cyber bullying is the use of information technology to repeatedly harm or harass other people in a deliberate manner. 95 Pornography use as a risk marker for an aggressive pattern of behavior among sexually reactive children and adolescents (2009), William F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Massachusetts. 96 The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions by Eugene V Beresin, M.D. Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Residency Training Massachusetts General Hospital and McLean Hospital. 97 L. R. Huesmann and others, “Longitudinal Relations between Children's Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood,1977–1992,” Developmental Psychology 39, no. 2 (2003): 201–21.

22

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

both immediate and long-term contexts.98Also commissions of heinous crimes by juveniles are the result of the aggression and violence developed in them due to easy access of the technology and other dangerous tools. More than 75% of kids in homes with guns say they know where the gun is kept.99 Annually, there are only about 200 legally justified selfdefense homicides by private citizens100 compared with over 30,000 gun deaths.101.

4. Whether the impugned amendment dehumanizes the criminal administration of justice as contended by the petitioner? The primary purpose of law in any country is the smooth and suave functioning of country without any havoc/hindrances and disturbances. But, the very basic and prime purpose of law seems to be defeated by the JJ(Care & Protection)Act, 2000 act in our country. A mere punishment of imprisonment for just 3 years102 and that too in special home atmosphere for the heinous and grievous acts, such as of rape, murder and kidnapping, no where seems to meet the ends of the justice or the purpose for which this law was enacted. The concern of the administration of justice is the fair, just and impartial upholding of rights, and punishment of wrongs, according to the rule of law103. The administration of justice is not confined to the Courts; it encompasses officers of the law and others such as legislature whose duties are essential to ensure the effective functioning of the courts. So, accordingly the said amendment has been enacted in order to deal with the rapid increase in the heinous crimes committed by the juveniles in order to deter and set a benchmark for the other juveniles as well and to promote a healthy and free living in the society. 4.1 Shielding the rights of victims

98

C. A. Anderson and others, “The Influence of Media Violence on Youth,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4, no. 3 (2003): 81–110.www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/index.cfm?journal=pspi&content=pspi/4_3. 99 Reddy, C Sheela, Dimensions of juvenile crime: An Indian perspective, Vol. 7,South Asia Politics, Aug 2008 100 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Expanded Homicide Data Table 14, 2007. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html. 101 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, 2007. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/ injury/wisqars/fatal.html. 102 Sec. 15(3) of JJ(CPA) act, 2000 103 A. V. Dicey propounded the concept of rule of law in the 19th century.

23

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

The no. of serious and violent crimes by the juveniles are on high rise especially on women. 66.3% of the total juveniles apprehended in 2013 were all lying in the age category of 16-18 years and also the no. of juveniles in the same age category has increased to 59.7% from 2003 to 2013.104 Crimes lead to various repercussions as they may leave victims physically injured, emotionally traumatized, with long lasting psychological trauma, all of which can be compounded by severe financial issues. Therefore the amendment has been laid down to control the increasing violent crimes. The said amendment doesn’t dehumanizes the criminal administration of justice as it is applicable to those juveniles only who are indulged in heinous crimes such as rape, murder etc. and also the amendment prescribes that the life imprisonment and death penalty should not be granted to the juveniles there under. In United Kingdom, Youth justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999, says children between ages 10 and 18 are capable of committing a crime and will be tried in a separate court for youth. In exceptionally severe cases, a youth can be tried as an adult in regular courts.105 Therefore, the impugned amendment is in consonance with the human rights of the juveniles as well as the victims of the crimes in order to attain a balance between the rights of the victims as well as of offenders also. 4.2 Puppet in the hands of criminal rackets Complying with the provisions of the JJ(Care & Protection) Act, 2000 blindly in black and white, without providing it any scope for flexibility to meet the ends of justice or the intention behind the enactment of that act is ultimately heading towards in altogether a very different, which anyone of us would have never thought of and it is ultimately proving a “BOON” for the actual doers or master minds of the crime due to the strict abidance of this law. They are opting for the poor and needy minors in allurance for small amounts of money to execute their acts, because they are very well aware of the fact that JJ Act would be acting as a safeguard for them and ultimately what at max. they can be punished with is a mere imprisonment for a period of 3

104 105

NCRB TABLE-10.7, Juveniles Apprehended Under IPC And SLL Crimes By Age Groups (2003-2013) About the youth justice board, UK GOVT, (Jan 25 ,2015,09:55 pm), http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/yjb

24

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

years, no matter how heinous the crime is. Instead of having a sense of fear to the JJ(Care & Protection) Act as a piece of law, it is being used as a “gateway pass” for their crimes by them. Two important aspects related to juvenile crimes are paid no heed by the reformists while pleading for the maintenance of status quo in juvenile law. Firstly, society, especially women, also need protection from a juvenile who has got sufficient mental maturity and understanding of the nature and consequences of his action, but still commits the same intentionally and in cold blood because of his criminal bent of mind. Such hardened juvenile mostly belong to the age group of sixteen to eighteen years. Secondly, one of the basic object of granting befitting punishment is to create a deterrent effect, both upon wrong-doer as well as on others members of Society. Mere knowledge of the fact that one can escape any punishment may make a juvenile more reckless and dangerous. It may also encourage adult accomplices in such crimes to push the onus for the gravest aspects of such crimes on the juvenile, thereby escaping full punishment themselves. Hence, The stated amendment will surely yield results as the terrorists or other crime syndicates will not use the children for achieving their ill-motivated targets keeping the life of the other people at par with risk. The impugned amendment was need of the hour in order to promote a healthy and free living in the society and eradicate the juvenile crimes in the society and transform the youth of the nation as a stepping stone to the growth and development of the nation

25

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE COURT Wherefore in the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent humbly submits that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that: TO HOLD

1. That the petition is not maintainable. 2. That the said amendment in JJCPA,2000 is Constitutional and does not violate

the core principles of international covenants and other established ideals . MISCELLANEOUS 1. Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good

conscience .

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/(Counsel for the respondent)

XVI

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~