Shifting Epistemology of Juvenile Justice in India

Abstract

The conception of juvenile justice has its ontological root in the internationalisation of childhood and construction of children as a distinct social class. The Euro-centric vision of children as rights-possessors that informed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1989) transformed the epistemology of juvenile justice. India ratified the CRC in 1992, and defined ‘child’ uniformly, irrespective of sex, unlike in the past, thereby challenging its gendered subjectivity of ‘female child.’ Such an emergence of a new modality of delivering juvenile justice that I see as the epistemic shift did not last long, and one gory incident, alongside mediatised demonisation of male children, and brewing social discontent on women’s safety, changed its landscape. This paper foregrounds an analysis of the role of gender in juvenile justice jurisprudence from the colonial period to the present time. Reflecting on the populist punitiveness at play, it talks about the Indian state’s poverty of understanding of children’s rights. Mapping legislative, juridical and political dimensions of the journey of the juvenile justice framework in India, the paper shows how construction of gendered notions of a particular group of male child offenders has resulted in the punitive turn of the juvenile justice system in India. It further unpacks the potentiality of repercussions of such punitiveness, and offers reasons as to why a retributive response by the state is a step backwards in reforming juvenile delinquents. Overall, it narrates the story of a political-systemic failure to deal with an important social issue, which may act as a lesson to be learnt with respect to the child governance framework, both for the countries in South Asia and the wider global South.

Understanding deviance from the perspectives of youth labelled as children in conflict with law in Mumbai, India

“…Contrary to public perception, the phenomenon of offences by children compared with the adult population has been consistently low in India (Kumar, 2019): the percentage share of juvenile crimes to the total crimes in India was recorded below 1% (India, National Crime Records Bureau, 2020). Out of the total apprehended children, 42.4% of them belonged to low‐income families and 54.1% belonged to low‐ to middle‐income families (India, National Crime Records Bureau, 2015); 75.7% of the apprehended children were not educated above matriculate level (India, National Crime Records Bureau, 2020).…”

“…The issue of deviance gets further layered and complex in the context of children in conflict with law in their youth phase. Deviant behaviour by youth is increasingly seen as a serious threat to modern society (Barry, 2006; Brown, 1999; Kumar, 2019). Yet, youth engaging in deviant behaviours fit into the age‐related stereotypes created by society for them, for example, rebellion, rejection of authority and responsibility (Brezina & Agnew, 2015; Brown, 1999).…”

“…However, in the context of social inequalities experienced by most youth, offending may be viewed as a transition phase, a means of balancing power by gaining social recognition (Barry, 2006). Recent literature has emphasised that adolescence and early youth phases are marked by multiple physiological and psychological changes, the influence of peer relationships, vulnerabilities to risk‐taking behaviour, and victimisation due to growing inequalities (Kumar, 2019; Kumari, 2014; National Commission on Protection of Child Rights, 2015; Parackal & Panicker, 2019; Sakhrani, 2017).…”

“…Most of the literature in the Indian context is largely conceptual reviews based on official statistics to present the offending patterns and provide policy recommendations, covering: the structure of the JJS and approaches for rehabilitation of CCL (Kumari, 2012; Mishra, 2019; Mukundan, 2017; Sakhrani, 2017); and critical analysis of the juvenile justice law and its amendments (Kumar, 2019; Kumari, 2014, 2016; Singh, 2019). The dominant use of positivist paradigms in studying deviance and crime in such literature renders the already marginalised children voiceless, invisibilising their experiences of deviance and deviant labelling.…”

“…Within the JJS, the category of a CCL is treated differently with a separate set of laws, while the other category is – ‘child in need of care and protection’, which includes homeless, missing, working, street, abandoned, or exploited children (Sakhrani, 2017). Recently, this law was modified to allow children in the age group of 16 to below 18 years to be treated as adults for allegedly committing a heinous offence such as murder or rape, driven by media, public and political pressure (Kumar, 2019; Kumari, 2016).…”