Political factor in today’s world has got a chief role to provide a better justice system for children in India. The Indian parliament passed the Juvenile Justice Act in the year 2000, which incorporates the principles set out in the CRC, the Beijing Rules, the UN Rules, and other relevant international agreements with a focus on child care and protection. Perhaps, there isn’t anything where politics and the ingredient of corruption aren’t involved.
These political aspects are the leading cause for the delay in any decision or maybe a wrong turn for the juvenile or for providing them justice. The political or media control of certain cases has caused a wide range of questions for the public and the court.
In Dr. Subramaniam Swamy’s case, the Supreme court stated that any interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 by that court would not be limited to the first respondent (the child accused in the Nirbhaya case), but would have an impact on all juveniles who may come into conflict with the law shortly.
Rather than jail and retribution, the whole idea of juvenile jurisprudence is centered on the condition of restoration, rehabilitation, and reform. There are, without a doubt, several elements that have conspired to undermine the austerity penalty’s positive ideal.
The state’s goal of criminalizing delinquent children has been made simpler by the absence of movements for children as well as individuals in India because of the prevailing idea that they require protection, not in their own right. Many children’s futures are jeopardized by the JJA 2000’s shift away from an all-inclusive and protective character.
It’s also clear that the Ministry opted to dismiss and neglect the key stakeholder’s concerns about the replacement of the JJA 2000 with the JJA 2015.