Question that stalled juvenile bill

ANANYA SENGUPTA, TT, New Delhi, April 8: Senior Union ministers appear to be on different pages on a draft juvenile justice bill that seeks to treat as adult those charged with heinous crimes but aged between 16 and 18.

At a cabinet meeting yesterday, information technology minister Ravi Shankar Prasad is believed to have raised a question that forced Prime Minister Narendra Modi to refer the draft bill to yet another committee.

"Once a juvenile completes his sentence, would he be eligible to contest elections?" a source quoted Prasad as asking.

The question took the women and child development minister, Maneka Gandhi, by surprise as Prasad had been law minister when the cabinet cleared the draft Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Bill last August.

"This does not come under the purview of the juvenile justice act, which deals only with juveniles," the source quoted Maneka as telling her cabinet colleagues.

Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, a person convicted of certain offences is barred from contesting an election to a legislature or Parliament for six years after release from prison.

After the draft juvenile bill was cleared last year and placed before Parliament, it was referred to a standing committee that recommended some changes.

Maneka rejected the changes and took the bill to a committee appointed by Modi and headed by Arun Jaitley. Last month, this committee vetted the bill, after which it was placed before the cabinet again.

A source close to Prasad indicated that the minister felt there should be more introspection on the bill as it had "far-reaching importance". "He thinks there should be as many filtrations as possible in the act to make it balanced so that it protects the dignity of the juvenile as well as provides justice to the victims," the source said.

Prasad declined to comment on the issue when contacted by this newspaper. "The Prime Minister has made me a part of the group that will look into the matter again, so I do not want to comment on it," he said.

An official in Maneka's ministry claimed that Prasad's objections were not shared by finance minister Jaitley or law minister Sadanand Gowda.

"None of the other senior members had problems with the bill. Jaitley and Gowda asked Prasad to let the bill go ahead, saying the draft complied with the directions of the Supreme Court," said the official. Neither Jaitley nor Gowda was available to corroborate the version.

The bill has now been referred to a group of ministers that includes Jaitley, Gowda, Venkaiah Naidu, Nitin Gadkari and Prasad, apart from Maneka.

Sources said Maneka was upset because Prasad's question raised issues outside the purview of the act.

"The act deals only with juveniles. His query is basically on the larger criminal justice system, which can be addressed in a different forum. Why delay the bill without reason?" a women's ministry official said, adding the bill was likely to be taken up for discussion in the cabinet on April 22.

A senior Supreme Court lawyer, K.V. Dhananjay, said Prasad's question might have been sparked by the provision to treat as adult children between 16 and 18 years charged with a heinous crime.

"Under the present law (Juvenile Justice Act, 2000), there is no concept of any conviction or imprisonment for a juvenile. So, there is absolutely no bar on contesting elections if the child is 18 when he comes out of a remand home," said Dhananjay.

"But if the proposed amendment is approved, the disqualification law will kick in as a juvenile would be treated like an adult, thus barring him from contesting elections for six years from the date of completion of sentence."