The Supreme Court today commenced the final hearing on the pleas seeking fresh interpretation of the term 'juvenile' in the statute and leaving it to the criminal court, instead of the Juvenile Justice Board, to determine the juvenility of an offender in heinous crimes.
Two petitions were filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and parents of the victim of December 16 gangrape, who have challenged the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
Swamy, who commenced the arguments before a bench headed by chief justice P Sathasivan, contended that the Act provides for a "straitjacket" interpretation of the term 'juvenile' that a person below the age of 18 years is a minor and it was in violation of the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and Beijing Rules on the issue.
The UNCRC and Beijing Rules say the presumption of "the age of criminal responsibility" be fixed while "bearing in mind the mental and intellectual maturity" of the offender, he said.
Swamy said he was neither seeking lowering the 18 years limit set in JJA nor his plea is indvidual-centric and the reference of the juvenile, one of the accused in the December 16 gangrape case, in his plea was merely an illustration.
He said with the age of consent in sexual intercourse being lowered to 16 years, in rape offences, 18 years has to be realistically and purposely construed by considering the "mental and intellectual maturity" of minor offenders while fixing their culpability.
