Activists question validity of committee to scrutinise JJB’s order
Two young IT professionals were killed after their motorcycle was hit by a speeding Porsche Taycan allegedly driven by the minor in the early hours of May 19 in the Kalyaninagar area
Former members of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and child rights activists have raised concerns regarding the constitutional validity of a committee formed by the commissioner of the State Women and Child Development Department to scrutinize the board’s order.
Two young IT professionals were killed after their motorcycle was hit by a speeding Porsche Taycan allegedly driven by the minor in the early hours of May 19 in the Kalyaninagar area.
The JJB granted bail to the teenager hours after the incident. It also asked him to write a 300-word essay on road accidents, an order that drew an onslaught of criticism.
After the accident, Prashant Narnaware, commissioner, State Women and Child Development, had appointed a five-member committee consisting of a deputy commissioner and four other members to check if the JJB followed the judicial process while granting bail to the 17-year-old while setting conditions seen as “lenient”.
Sunil Patil, former JJB member said, “There is a question on the constitutional validity of such a committee. As JJB is the quasi-judicial body there are one judicial member and two non-judicial members. While making any decision non-judicial members offer their views to judicial members and accordingly judicial members make decisions. If the decision is taken by a judicial member, then no committee can ask questions about his conduct or decision.’’
According to Patil, if anybody wants to challenge JJB’s decision, then he or she should approach the higher court. “How can a committee decide the fate of conduct of the JJB,” said Patil.
Another JJB member requesting anonymity said, “JJB takes decisions on the principle of protection and care on which the Juvenile Justice Act is based. Then how come such a panel investigate the conduct of the committee? This committee can create long-term implications, as in future JJB members will not work independently.’’
Yamini Adabe, a child activist, also alleged that under pressure the government is initiating such bad practices. “How can we investigate the entire conduct of the quasi-judicial body committee? If anybody wants to challenge them then they should approach district court.’’
Adabe argued that such a committee could encroach upon the independence of JJB decisions, potentially leading to undue influence or interference in matters of juvenile justice. She asserted that the Juvenile Justice Act provides a comprehensive framework for adjudication, including avenues for appeals and judicial review, without the need for additional oversight bodies.
Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the composition and expertise of the committee members, with questions looming over their qualifications to assess complex legal and social issues inherent in juvenile justice cases.
Critics contend that the formation of a committee to scrutinise JJB judgments may undermine the autonomy and impartiality of the juvenile justice system.
However, Narnaware said, “Two members appointed by the state on JJB can examine whether they are properly functioning or not. According to which I had issued an enquiry order but not the judicial member.”
“The committee has already initiated work and is collecting documents required to substantiate the case. By next week they are likely to submit a report. Then I will put my observations and send it to the state government for further action,” he said.
Advocate Asim Sarode, who advocates for child rights, said that “The committee has been appointed due to pressure tactics by the government. JJB is ‘welfare legislation’ so we must interpret it accordingly. How can we judge them on one particular judgement, this will dilute the independent work of JJB. We cannot change the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act, considering only one case or incidence.”
