Editorial: Amend juvenile justice law
If a juvenile commits a heinous crime, he must face the consequences
The Pune Porsche crash involving a drunk teenager sparked nationwide outrage when a local court granted him bail within 15 hours of the tragic incident that claimed two lives. It was preposterous to let him off the hook on laughable bail conditions like asking him to write a 300-word essay on accidents, work with traffic police for 15 days and undergo counselling for his drinking habit. Thankfully, the Justice Juvenile Board has now cancelled the bail and sent him to the Children Observation Centre till June 5. The Pune police have justifiably demanded that the minor be treated as an adult during prosecution, given the serious nature of the crime. If a person is capable of committing a heinous crime like raping a woman, he should be made to face the punishment for rape, irrespective of his age. There is no need to treat him as an adolescent just because he is yet to attain 18 years. When Nirbhaya was gang-raped and thrown from a moving bus in New Delhi, the cruellest behaviour was that of an adolescent, who received only the maximum punishment of three years under the juvenile justice Act. Such a lenient approach amounts to a mockery of justice. In the Pune Porsche case, the teenager consumed liquor at a pub, drove a brand-new Porsche car, without a number plate, at a breakneck speed of over 200 kmph and rammed into a bike from behind, killing the motorcyclist and the pillion rider, both young software professionals.
The question is why should a person who could drive in a drunken state and kill two persons due to reckless driving be given kid-glove treatment in the name of juvenile law? The families of the crash victims have criticised the swift bail granted to the teenage driver and aptly termed the incident as a “murder, not an accident”. The police must build a watertight case to ensure exemplary punishment for the culprit under the relevant sections of the law. The accused must be tried as an adult. Despite the CCTV evidence that the teen driver had liquor at a pub, he was not subjected to an alcohol test in time. He was also charged with simple offences like negligent driving where bail, not jail, is the norm. Instead, he should have been charged with manslaughter. The only sensible step the Pune Police took was to arrest the boy’s father, a prosperous realtor, who gave the boy the key to his new car despite knowing that he had no driving licence, and the manager of the pub, who was not supposed to serve liquor to anyone under 25. There is a strong case for amending the juvenile justice law under which such a person should be treated as an adult. If a juvenile commits a heinous crime, he must face the consequences.
