House rushes to pass juvenile bill

TT, New Delhi, Dec. 22: A bill that allows juveniles aged 16 to 18 to be tried as adults for heinous crimes cleared Parliament today as several Opposition parties which had advised further scrutiny did not press their case.

The December 16 gang-rape victim's parents watched from the visitors' gallery while the Rajya Sabha discussed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill for five hours.

Till the end, a sizable section of the House wanted it referred to a select committee as agreed before. But eventually all except the CPM - which insisted "the crime is important, not the age" - passed it by voice vote. Some senior lawyers accused MPs of yielding to public sentiment.

Congress sources said the party had decided even this morning to insist on a select panel referral but yielded to "public pressure" at the last minute, unwilling to be seen as blocking a law aimed at protecting women.

The gang-rape victim's parents had met Rahul Gandhi today to seek the Congress's support for the bill.

The CPM walked out before the vote, with Sitaram Yechury later telling reporters: "The punishment should be based on the nature of the crime and not the age."

He argued: "After passing the law, if somebody aged 15 years and 11 months commits such a heinous crime again, what will be the response? Will we amend the law again?"

Many American states allow children as young as 13 or 14 to be prosecuted as adults for serious crimes while Britain handed a 12-year sentence in September to a 14-year-old convicted of murder.

Today's measure came amid a public campaign in favour of the bill, led by the victim's parents, protesting the discharge of the juvenile convict in the case who was handed three years' detention while his adult accomplices were sentenced to death.

Leaving Parliament House, the victim's mother said she was satisfied with the bill's passage but unhappy that her daughter had not received justice.

Several TV channels, however, mistakenly claimed that the juvenile, now in the care of an NGO, would not have been released had the law been enacted earlier.

In the House, many members referred to the way the media had "orchestrated" a public outcry over the juvenile's release. They correctly stressed that the act lacks retrospective effect.

Senior lawyer Rebecca John said: "While I can understand the sentiments of the victim's parents, it cannot be confused with the business of amending a law. I feel disappointed as the law has not been thought through."

Another senior lawyer, Vrinda Grover, said the lawmakers had succumbed to an "engineered public opinion".

Soli Sorabjee, the former attorney general, speaking on a TV channel, however, called it a good bill, though not ideal.

One argument for not delaying the bill any more was that it had been in the making for several years, allowing enough opportunities for deliberation.

During the House discussions, women and child development minister Maneka Gandhi underlined that the bill was a UPA legacy as she sought support in an Opposition-dominated House.

"This is not my bill. This is not even my government's bill. This bill was started by you and would be finished by us. It is a matter of the whole House," she said.

Trinamul member Derek O'Brien, who had earlier moved a motion to refer the bill to a select committee, did a U-turn today and became one of the strongest backers of the bill.

He said this was a "good bill" and there was no point "waiting indefinitely for an ideal bill".

Yechury said the CPM was not opposing the bill but only demanding that the MPs act responsibly and send it to a select committee instead of being driven by sentiment. Vandana Chavan (NCP) and Kanimozhi (DMK) spoke on similar lines.