
I am surprised at the views expressed by Sheela Barse in your paper of August 11 Prevent Cruelty Towards Children8217;. It is also surprising that your paper has carried the article which has primarily focussed on the process of consultations held by the ministry for the formulation of the juvenile justice Bill rather than analysing or commenting on what the focus of the Bill should be.
The ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment did not choose8217; any specific expert for drafting the Bill, but entrusted this responsibility to the National Law School, Bangalore, a premier institution of the country. In fact, the director of the Institute, worked personally on formulating the draft. This ministry had sanctioned Rs 30 lakh for the creation of a chair in the National Law School NLS to specifically address the problems of the juvenile justice system and its implementation in the country. The understanding was that the NLS would also help in drafting a proposed Bill for revision of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The funds were given to the National Law School as a corpus and were not sanctioned to a particular person.
After holding consultations with concerned individuals/organisations the NLS submitted a draft Bill on juvenile justice. UNICEF also took active part in these consultations. Barse however, informed me that all the experts who had attended the consultations at Bangalore, had rejected the draft prepared by NLS. In view of these observations, I felt the need for further advice on the proposed bill and wrote to experts all over the country including Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Justice Leila Seth, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon, member, Law Commission of India, Dr K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, School of Legal Studies, Cochin, Dr B.B. Pandey of Delhi University, Vibha Parthasarathy, chairperson, National Commission for Women, Indira Jaising, senior advocate, Supreme Court, Aparna Bhatt, Human Rights Law Network, Delhi, among others asking for their comments on the draft.
After receiving their comments, it was decided to constitute a Committee consisting of Prof. B.B. Pande, professor, Campus Law Centre, Delhi University, Amod Kanth, honorary general secretary, Prayas, A.V. Kumar, honorary general secretary, Delhi Council for Child Welfare, Dr A.B. Bose, ex-adviser, Social Development, Planning Commission, Chandra Billimoria, honorary executive secretary, Childline India Foundation, Andal Damodaran, chairperson, Central Adoption amp; Resource Agency, and Sheela Barse herself to finalise the draft bill. However, Barse disassociated herself from the Committee only after attending three sittings. In her disassociation note, she claimed that she had been forced to take this decision because of the behaviour and attitude of a particular member towards her.
The Committee later submitted its recommendations based on which the Bill was drafted in consultation with the ministry of law. The Bill is now at an advanced stage of being introduced in Parliament.
The purpose of the Bill is exactly the opposite of what Barse has alleged. The objective is to create a legal framework which will effectively deal with the care and needs of the conflict with the law and in need of care and protection. It emphasises the role of the community and voluntary organisations towards rehabilitation and social re-integration of such categories of children. The aim is to create a more child-friendly system and to bring the law in conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which India has ratified.
It would perhaps have been more appropriate for Barse to involve herself constructively at the time of consultations of the expert committee and put forward her suggestions in a clear and rational manner which could have been considered and discussed for inclusion in the draft Bill.
The writer is minister of state for Social Justice and Empowerment