The nationwide outrage against the Pune Porsche case, specifically, the conditions on which bail was granted to the 17-year-old, may appear warranted. Yet, an examination of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 suggests these conditions are in line with safeguarding minors while holding accountable those who influenced their actions.
—
THE Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)’s decision to release a 17-year-old boy in Pune after he fatally crashed his speeding luxury car into two bike-borne persons has been at the centre of a heated debate.
The case, that has come to be known as the Pune Porsche case, triggered public outrage after the teenager was released on bail within 15 hours on the condition of writing an essay on road accidents, working with traffic police for 15 days to study traffic rules and regulations, undergoing de-addiction counselling, and psychology and psychiatrist consultation.
The case even became part of a political slugfest with leaders clashing to leverage the tragedy for political gains. Reacting to public resentment over the JJB’s Order, the teenager’s bail was cancelled and he was sent to an observation home. His parents, grandfather and the owner of the clubs that served him alcohol now face criminal charges.
Rash driving roughly accounts for 10 percent (357,900) of the total crimes registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), according to a 2022 National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report. In 2022, road accidents claimed 168,491 lives, and 4,43,366 people suffered injuries due to such accidents.
The new Act provides for a ‘preliminary assessment’ under which the children between the age of 16 and 18 years accused of heinous crimes would be evaluated for their mental and physical capacity, understanding of the consequences of their actions, and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, to be tried and sentenced as adults.
While crimes resulting from rash driving are quite common in India, the criticism against the Pune accident case has been twofold: firstly, against the unequal access to justice based on wealth and privilege, and secondly, against the ‘lenient’ treatment of children close to adulthood under the juvenile justice law.
The former highlights pervasive systemic issues that undermine the mandate of equal treatment before the law and erode public confidence in the legal justice system.
The cover-ups reveal an all-too-familiar misuse of power involving politicians, doctors and law enforcement officials to manipulate legal proceedings in their favour. The latter concern, however, seems more misplaced.
The fact remains that the JJB’s first Order of letting the boy go on certain conditions was very much in line with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act), 2015.
Under the constitutional mandate of Article 15, along with international obligations to protect children’s rights, the Act provides far-reaching safeguards for children. A ‘child’, defined as any person below the age of 18 years, has a higher threshold for criminal responsibility in recognition of their neuro-biological and developmental immaturity, and environmental vulnerabilities such as poverty, abuse, exposure to crime and violence.
The juvenile justice system focuses on rehabilitation over punishment on account of children’s higher potential for reform.
The JJ Act of 2000 prescribed a maximum punishment of three years regardless of the juvenile’s age and nature of offence.
But following the horrific Delhi gang-rape case of 2012, there was a rising chorus for harsh punishment for the 17-year-old accused in the case. Public demanded that he should be tried as an adult and that is when the JJ Act of 2015 was enacted.
The Act of 2000 aimed to address the root causes of delinquency through care and rehabilitative support. The new Act provides for a ‘preliminary assessment’ under which children between the ages of 16 and 18 years accused of heinous crimes would be evaluated for their mental and physical capacity, understanding of the consequences of their actions, and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, to be tried and sentenced as adults.
Child rights activists expressed concerns over the constitutionality of this move and the legal system’s capacity to conduct these assessments accurately, fairly and promptly, given its resource and training limitations.
When to try children as adults
The Pune teenager has been booked for culpable homicide under Section 304 of the IPC. The charge under Section 304A of the IPC, which pertains to causing death by negligence, typically applied in such cases, prescribes a punishment of merely two years.
However, the aggravated charge and so-called ‘heinous nature’ of this case seem to be an overreach in response to mounting public pressure, as it is a settled position of law that a child in conflict with law (CCLs) cannot be tried as an adult for an offence determined to be non-heinous in nature.
In 2016, a similar case was reported from Delhi where a juvenile fatally crashed into a 32-year-old man. After public outcry, the juvenile was ordered to be tried as an adult by the JJB.
Also read: ‘Juvenile, Not Delinquent’: At the launch of a book on juvenile offenders, an empathetic discussion
The CCL in this case was also charged under Section 304 of the IPC, which does not prescribe a minimum sentence but has a maximum sentence exceeding seven years.
The Juvenile Justice Board’s first Order of letting the boy go on certain conditions was much in line with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it ruled that such offences should not be considered “heinous”, but rather “serious”, and rejected the plea for the CCL to be assessed for trial as an adult.
The court reaffirmed the exceptional nature of this provision in favour of children, and stated: “We also have to keep in mind the fact that the scheme of the JJ Act, 2015 is that children should be protected. Treating children as adults is an exception to the rule. It is also a well settled principle of statutory interpretation that normally an exception has to be given a restricted meaning.”
Bail under juvenile justice
Section 304A is a bailable offence. In most cases, bail is obtained through bonds from a police station, irrespective of the accused’s age. The core of the JJ Act is that the institutionalisation of any child should be the last resort and not the default approach.
Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, dealing with bail, provides three options to the JJB: to release the child with or without surety, or under the supervision of a probation officer, or under the care of a fit person.
The only conditions in which bail can be denied to a CCL are if the release is likely to bring them in association with any known criminal, expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.
A reading of the principles and the Section on bail makes the legislature’s intention crystal clear: a CCL is entitled to bail in all cases, regardless of their age and nature of the offence, except when it is in their own best interest.
The nature of the custody becomes protective, not punitive, with the foremost consideration being the best interests of the child rather than society. The protective provision extends even to CCLs who have been transferred to the sessions courts for trial as adults.
While the proactive action taken by the JJB for the 17-year-old accused in Pune hit-and-run case may indicate the influence of power and privilege over legal proceedings, considering the swiftness of the hearing and disposal of the bail application within hours on a holiday, the grant of bail itself aligns with the object and spirit of the JJ Act, as well as precedents from constitutional courts.
The core of the JJ Act is that the institutionalisation of any child should be the last resort, and not the default approach.
Also read: ‘India only seems to wake up to reality when there is an atrocity’
The expedient release of the CCL and, to an extent, even the conditions imposed, seems to be the appropriate recourse in most such cases, not just those involving CCLs from influential backgrounds.
Rights of the CCL
As is often the case, adherence to the principles of juvenile justice is quickly abandoned. In the myriad op-eds pouring in, there is little discussion about how the statutory rights of the CCL have been violated.
The JJ Act makes strict provisions to protect the confidentiality of the CCL’s identity, ensuring they are afforded the opportunity for a fresh start once out of the system. However, both the media and the JJB seem to have lost sight of this crucial protection.
Videos of the CCL, his father, along with their names, address and occupation, continue to be displayed across news and social media. This mirrors the situation of the minor in the Delhi gang-rape case, whose identity continued to surface in reports even years after his release, relocation and change of identity.
In light of the unending outrage, the Pune teenager’s parents and grandfather, prominent builders in the city, have been booked under provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the JJ Act, 2015 for providing the CCL with the car, destruction of evidence and witness tampering.
The pubs that served the underage boy liquor have also been penalised under the relevant laws. However, public expectation remains in favour of the judicial process punishing the CCL by denying him bail and allowing for his trial as an adult, irrespective of the contrary mandate of the law.
Consequently, the bail granted to the CCL stands cancelled, and he has been remanded to custody in an observation home. The member of the JJB who passed the original bail Order has been hounded by the media and angered citizens. This is dangerous, as it might influence other JJBs to apply the law on bail more strictly than provided under the law.
Furthermore, the bail conditions have disregarded another significant guiding principle of juvenile justice: the presumption of innocence.
The JJ Act makes strict provisions to protect the confidentiality of the CCL’s identity, ensuring they are afforded the opportunity for a fresh start once out of the system. However, both the media and the JJB seem to have lost sight of this crucial protection.
Also read: Juveniles in adult prisons: Why is the Juvenile Justice Act failing its object and purpose?
The conditions seem to have been formulated under the assumption that the CCL is involved in the alleged offence, which contradicts the fundamental principle that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Where does the problem lie?
While the abuse of privilege evokes legitimate anger of the public at the systemic failings of our legal system, the desire to seek revenge from individual CCLs is reactionary and unreasonable.
It is important to remember that a child is a product of their environment. The alleged actions of consuming liquor, spending excessively on partying and alcohol, driving an unregistered luxury vehicle without a valid licence, overspeeding and causing fatalities are symptomatic of the arrogance and entitlement that often accompany the rich, who complacently and for good reason believe that the law bends at their convenience and raise their children to believe the same.
The incident also sheds light on the casual approach to road safety and the disregard with which pubs serve liquor to underage minors. Had the incident not resulted in fatalities, it likely would not have received the same level of nation-wide attention.
If the car involved had not been a Porsche or if the CCL had been an adult of ordinary means, the news might have gone unnoticed in a local newspaper.
It is concerning that the public debate has overlooked a significant 54.19 percent cut in the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme and a 29 percent cut in schemes in the 2015–16 budget for children, the same year that the punitive transfer system was introduced by the JJ Act, 2015.
The cuts in schemes meant to address crucial issues for children such as malnutrition, education, health, child protection and welfare of disadvantaged groups as well as the neglect and underfunding of the JJBs and observation homes for boys and girls, including the one housing the CCL in question, are also telling of the misplaced priorities of the government to address juvenile delinquency.
Also read: Need to sensitise governments to open their purses for juvenile welfare: Justice Ravindra Bhat
Often, children from difficult circumstances who come in contact with the law find themselves in jail for years, evoking far less outrage or sympathy from the public. The outcries still lack a demand for meaningful and committed implementation of the JJ Act which would make timely legal justice equal and achievable for all.
A reading of the principles and the Section on bail makes the legislature’s intention crystal clear: a CCL is entitled to bail in all cases, regardless of age and nature of the offence, except when it is in their own best interest.
Public perception cannot undermine the safeguards of due process or dictate legal decisions. Reactionary changes in the law to achieve a misguided sense of speedy justice, based on one-off incidents that spark outrage, lead to unjust criminalisation, fail to address the root cause of these crimes, and unfairly impact marginalised children.
Impassioned demands, especially those advocating for targeting, lynching or persecuting certain communities, individuals or children, are not only unfounded but can also be illegal or dangerous.
In such situations, only an independent, impartial, and dispassionate judiciary can ensure that legal proceedings adhere to established principles, protect individual rights and deliver justice based on evidence and law rather than public sentiment.
