Pendency of cases in Juvenile Justice boards within the state of Bihar Nawaz ul haque* More than sixteen thousand

juvenile cases are pending in the various Juvenile Justice Boards in the different districts of Bihar state. It is beyond dispute that the credibility of these JJBs is almost shaken. Though the number of initiatives taken in the past by the social welfare department and higher judiciary to bring down the backlog but much progress could not be achieved to clear the excess workload. Time has come for us to rethink about the solutions to reduce the pendency of cases in juvenile justice boards. As we all aware that Juvenile Justice Act, 2006 (amendment) which is the central law and made the rights of the juvenile more explicit and assertive by providing for easy bail, disposal and by ruling out stringent punishments. The preamble of the Act undoubtedly articulate the intent of the legislature by providing for proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their developmental needs, and by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation. This paper focuses the problem of pendency of cases, increase in no of cases instituted in the duration (1/01/2011- 31/03/2012) and disposal of cases during the period in the state of Bihar. Further we also explore the reasons behind these issues and attempt to sketch some solutions for Juvenile Justice Boards to cope up the backlog and continuous increasing workload. Current situation: In 2012 march, an application was filed under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) in The High court of Patna to get the status of pendency of cases in juvenile justice boards in Bihar. The Honble Patna High Court responded with the information asked. The current situation is characterized by high levels of backlog juvenile pending cases. As per the information provided by the Patna High court Patna- JJB and Bhagalpur- JJB have more cases than other JJB districts. Patna accounts for more than 14 percent cases.

*Nawaz ul haque, Programme Coordinator, Bal Sakha, Patna, Bihar.

1
Name of JJB

2
Pendency at the beginning of the year,1/01/2011

3
Cases received during the year-2011

4
Disposal during the year-2011

5
Pendency -2011 Dec- 31st

Aurangabad Begusarai Bhagalpur Bhojpur Buxar Darbhanga East champaran Gaya Gopal ganj Jamui Jehanabad Kaimur Katihar Khagaria Madehpura Madhubani Munger Muzafferpur Nalanda Nawadh Patna Purnea Rohtas Saharsa Samastipur Saran Sitamarhi Siwan Vaishali West champaran TOTAL

476 645 1158 305 264 311 580 674 693 240 349 254 334 252 239 225 570 477 258 205 1871 530 533 300 451 478 779 249 509 329 14538

139 110 152 85 103 69 94 98 113 36 109 41 129 62 79 102 107 48 118 32 569 114 140 113 139 194 237 115 85 89 3621

46 71 119 44 11 25 61 69 54 1 65 29 57 51 35 12 79 55 60 21 63 66 99 22 88 70 175 31 51 179 1809

569 684 1191 346 356 355 613 703 752 275 393 266 406 263 283 315 598 470 316 216 2377 578 574 391 502 602 841 333 543 239 16350

1 Name of JJB

2 Pendency at the beginning of the

3 Cases received during the

4 Disposal during the quarter

5 Pendency at the end of the

Aurangabad Begusarai Bhagalpur Bhojpur Buxar Darbhanga East champaran Gaya Gopal ganj Jamui Jehanabad Kaimur Katihar Khagaria Madehpura Madhubani Munger Muzafferpur Nalanda Nawadh Patna Purnea Rohtas Saharsa Samastipur Saran Sitamarhi Siwan Vaishali West champaran TOTAL

quarter i.e. as on 01.01.2012 569 684 1191 346 356 355 613 703 752 275 393 266 406 263 283 315 598 470 316 216 2377 578 574 391 502 602 841 333 543 239 16350

quarter 38 36 49 27 17 11 24 27 27 11 42 10 17 20 26 28 86 14 43 15 81 25 35 26 52 6 61 23 25 26 928 20 31 47 0 1 4 14 8 21 0 8 13 5 4 10 10 25 75 22 25 81 63 31 12 7 6 44 23 19 15 644

quarter i.e.as on 31.03.2012 587 689 1193 373 372 362 623 722 758 286 427 263 418 279 299 333 659 409 337 206 2377 540 578 405 547 602 858 333 549 250 16634

By and large, the similar situation prevails in other districts with Sitamarhi and Gopal Ganj having 858 and 758 cases respectively. There were 722 juvenile cases in Gaya, East Champaran (623), Rohtas (578), Munger (659), Purnea (540), West Champaran (250), Siwan (333). Nalanda (337) and Darbhanga (362) respectively. In the other districts like the number varies between 500 and 250. From this data one can see that the rate of disposal is very slow nearly 10 percent in the year 2011 compare to cases instituted (24.9%-2011) in the JJBs resulted in accumulation of cases in the boards. Majority of the cases are pending for a prolonged and time consuming inquiries despite section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2006 (amendment) mandates disposal of such cases within four months of inquiry-maximum for six

months with reasons mentioned. If we take the rate of fresh instituted cases into account, then it would require more additional boards in some districts to control the pendency of juvenile cases. Provisions under Juvenile Justice Act, 2006(amendment) & JJ Rules 2007: Section 14- Inquiry by Board regarding juvenile [(1)]Where a juvenile having been charged with the offence is produced before a Board, the Board shall hold the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of this Act and may make such order in relation to the juvenile as it deems fit: Provided that an inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of its commencement, unless the period is extended by the Board having regard to the circumstances of the case in special cases after recording the reasons in writing for such extension. [(2)] The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall review the pendency of cases of the Board at every six months, and shall direct the Board to increase the frequency of its sitting or may cause the constitution of additional Boards. This can be further elaborated in the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007. Rule 13 (6)- Every inquiry by the Board shall be completed within a period of four months after the first summary inquiry and only in exceptional cases involving trans national criminality, large number of accused and inordinate delay in production of witness, the period of inquiry may be extended by two months on regarding of reasons by the Board. Rule 13 (7)- In all other cases except where the nature of alleged offences in serious, delay beyond four to six months shall lead to the termination of the proceedings. Rule 13 (8)- Where the proceedings are delayed beyond six months on account of serious nature of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate stating the of the offence alleged to have been committed by the Juvenile, the Board shall send the periodic report reason for delay as well as steps being taken to expedite the matter. In another Rule the role of Police or the Juvenile or the child Welfare Officer is significantly expressive regarding apprehension of Juveniles. Rule 11 (7)- The Police or the Juvenile or the child Welfare Officer from the nearest Police Station, shall exercise the power of apprehending the Juvenile only in cases of his alleged involvement in serious offences (entailing a Punishment of more than 7 years imprisonment for adults). As, will, therefore, be clear from the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2006(amendment) and the Juvenile Justice Rules,2007, the scheme of the Act and the said intention of the

legislature clearly indicates that the aforesaid law is not adversarial for children in conflict with law but to ensure speedy disposal of cases by the authorities within the time frame of four months provided by, in all other cases except where the nature of alleged offences is serious, delay beyond four to six months shall lead to the termination of the proceedings.

Reasons / grounds for pendency: The purpose of the juvenile justice system is to create a systematic rehabilitative structure for children in conflict with law; it is the duty of the Juvenile justice board to follow the legislative provisions provided in the Act/Rules meant for Juveniles. Previous studies and experiences shows us there is a lack of understanding about the Juvenile Justice (care and protection) Act, 2006 (amendment). The Actors involved in this system despite several reminders of Apex Court never comes out form their preconceived notions and negate the Juvenile justice system through their lackadaisical approach. This approach also avoids the principle of Child best interest and works more willingly with adult criminal justice system attitude. It is apparent from the data analysis of figures provided by the Patna high court that JJBs in Bihar do not apply the Act correctly nor give instructions to the police/SJPU for correct application of the Act. Following are some of the main grounds for pendency of juvenile cases.
1.

Non implementation of section 14 of JJ Act & rule 11(7), 13 (6)(7)of Non cooperation of police / Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) i.e. late Lack of training and sensitization of SJPU, Probation officers, JJB members. Adult mindset of principal magistrate who comes from adult criminal justice Frequent adjournments. Lack of Physical infrastructure and manpower (staff)

JJrules,2007
2.

submission of charge sheet and violation of rule 11(7) of JJ Rules.

3.

4. system.
5.

6.

Suggestive solution to the problem:

1.

Regular training and sensitization of concerned JJB /CWC, Probation officers

and SJPU members. Juvenile justice system can only progress if the respective concerned Actors involved know their legal responsibilities and accountabilities towards their work.
2. Regular review followed by monitoring and evaluation by Chief Judicial Magistrate

under the provisions of the JJ Act.

3. Involvement of NGOs in Para-legal tasks such as contacting the parents of juveniles in

conflict with law and gathering relevant social and rehabilitative information about the juveniles.