ISSUE – 1 whether the juvenile justice act is constitutionally valid or not?

The Juvenile justice act in itself section 2 (12) says that a juvenile means a person who has not completed the
age of 18 and on the other side the Juvenile justice act 2015 is contradicting its own law while saying that 16 to
18 years of age should be tried as adult criminal.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have proceeded without following series of steps to
unequal treatment violating article 14. The object or the motive of the juvenile justice act is to provide
safekeeping, protection and companionable approach the same abruptly fades away when the child is between
the ages of 16 to 18 years. Thus the motive of the juvenile justice act is not being satisfied as juveniles are
being treated as adult criminals where they would be sent to prison and due to which the juvenile would be
influenced to be more desensitized criminal so the motive of the act to safeguard the juveniles from perpetrating
the crime is not being satisfied rather than the government is trying to transmute them into accustomed
criminals and not to rehabilitate the juveniles so that they are welcome into the society. Thus there is
infringement of article 14 where the three test laid down by the supreme court are not being satisfied.

Violation of article 21 (Right of just trial has been infringed)

The right to have just trial is a fundamental right pledged under article 21 of the constitution which would
comprise procedural protection. The Juvenile has right to get his case minded of expeditiously is a statutory as
well as constitutional right and at all stages the board or the court is required to pass suitable fitting order under
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000

The right of opportunity to be heard of Siddharth and Suresh is also being breached because the Juveniles were
seized by just a minimal assertion or declaration where there was a no Prima Facie evidence and hence by a
meager affirmation they would be tried in session court. Thus both the juveniles should be given a opportunity
of manifesting themselves of not being guilty rather than detain them by a meager assertion stated by
s.k.kumar. Consequently there is a violation of Art 21 of the constitution. In the instant case of Siddharth and
Suresh both of them have a right of fair trial as they have been served as inculpated but not juvenile in dispute
with law according to section (15) of Juvenile Justice Act. The right of opportunity of being heard has also been
infringed as no one in the family of the juveniles was been informed. Thus the petitioner submits that the rights
of the juveniles are been infringed under article 21 of the Constitution.

SECTION 15 IS UNCONSTITUIONAL
The future of the nation depends upon the youth of the country. The children deserve compassion and bestowal
of the best care to protect this burgeoning human resource. A child is A child is born innocent and if nourished
with tender, care and attention he or she will blossom with the facilities physical, mental, moral and spiritual
into a person of stature and excellence.

All the requirements of instituting section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 have been filed in the instant case.
First it “Violates the very essence of Juvenile Justice Act. Secondly it also violates various Fundamental Rights.
Third, it does not take consideration of other relevant factors like social background and psychological
issues45. It has been well established by many neuroscientist that in adolescent period, child faces tremendous
physiological, hormonal, emotional and structural change in the human brain, which subjects the child to great
vulnerability. There are many international examples such as there is a U.S. study that is established 80% of the
juveniles released from prison go on to commit more serious offences. Hence this condition might be of India
due to this Law, which amended
.
The petitioner humbly submits that juveniles commits a tiny portion of crime in India and far less other than
other nations such as United States data that although there were 33,000 crimes committed by juveniles in India
in 2012 there has not been a large increase.

t is further submitted that the child should have to face the ignominy of being called as “Accused” even though
he may or may not have committed the said offence. Further, the child shall be forced to face fair trial which
will have a negative effect on the psychology of mind. As this law will be highly misused if teenagers are found
for consensual sex then the male would be charged for rape and will be sent in the prison. As there is an old
established principle in law that lex iniusta non est lex that says unjust law is not a law.

It is submitted that as per the scheme of the amendment act the Juvenile Justice Board under section 1535of the
Act will have an arbitrary power to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether a juvenile offender is to
be sent for rehabilitation or be tried as an adult. It is submitted that such classification does not adhere to or
does not have any nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. It is submitted that the impugned Act has
been brought in place in a knee jerk manner and without keeping in mind the interest of the children.

it is submitted that under the Indian law a person under the age of 18 is not allowed to vote, is considered
minor for entering into a contract, a girl of age less than 18 cannot give consent for sexual relationships,
a child of age less than 18 cannot marry, yet, by the amended act, that child can be tried as an adult and
after a preliminary assessment, the child shall be presumed to have the knowledge and understanding of
the alleged crime he has committed. The counsel submits that such a scenario would be travesty of
Justice
Under the existing law of a child in conflict with law between the age of sixteen - eighteen years were
found to have committed an offence by Juvenile Justice Board, there was a arrange of rehabilitation
supposition that could be passed by Juvenile Justice Board. This rehabilitation disposition includes
admonition community service imposition of a fine, probation group counseling and an extreme measure
of deprivation of liberty by way of placement of the child in the special home for three years. Also there
has been no such alternative remedy, which has been proposed like shelter homes, observation homes
and rehabilitation homes. In the landmark case of Sheela Barse and Anrs. v. Union of India the
judgment delivered in the Supreme Court by the bench Bhagwati J. in which it was emphasized that a
central act is needed for ensuring social economic and psychological rehabilitation of the children who
are either accused or are abandoned or destitute or lost. If further stressed, then need not only of having
legislation but to enforce it with all earnestness and plea like financial constraints would not serve our
purpose in binding up of powerful human resource who are to taken reins of nation in forward march.

This act has basically been just saying about the juveniles who are to be tried as an adult criminals and it is
sadly to be said that a majority of children in conflict with law comes from illiterate family, poor homes or even
homeless. 77.5% arrested children in 2013 comes from families with a monthly household of income of less
than Rupees four thousand two hundred only. That’s how these poor the children’s are 87% have not received
Higher Secondary Education65. These are the ones that the government are trying to punish instead of
providing them with the education or give them an opportunity to integrate into our society66.
As Delhi alone has around eighty thousand street children and when children are living on the streets or in
pitiable condition they can easily come under the influence of criminal minded adults hence it is better to
educate them rather than throwing them to a jail.

Similarly, in the case of Suresh and Siddarth, Suresh was a poor boy who was a
dropout due to financial conditions and has struggled a lot in his life where he has
never got love and affection from his family and neither from Shubhangi and
Shubham who were the children of his master Mr. Chopra where they used to ill-
treat him and misbehave with him and during his bad times siddharth was the only
witness where Shubham and Shubhangi abused him as the product was not
available in the market.