Helping hand: The new Bill will bring child beggars in its ambit

For 11-year-old Raju who begs in front of the Central Metro station in Calcutta, good news may be round the corner. The government has mooted a proposal that would allow Raju and others like him to be adopted by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as the first step towards rehabilitation. The move to legalise adoption of child beggars is part of a proposal to make amendments to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill that was tabled in Parliament on July 6, 2006. The amendments would improve the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

“The new amendments attempt to make the law more child friendly,” says Ashish Kumar Roy, project officer of Tomorrow’s Foundation, an NGO that runs a children’s home in Calcutta. The principal Act aimed to provide a juvenile justice system for children who have broken the law and are in need of care and protection. The Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment of Parliament submitted its report on the Act in December last year proposing the changes. Some provisions in the principal Act were challenged in court, leading to the proposed amendments.

“The cardinal issue in legalities concerning children is that the law must aim to work with children rather than work for children,” explains Roy. He mentions that the amendments in the new Bill were suggested by NGOs that wanted to expand the number of ways in which help could be offered to children in need.

“According to the new amendment to Section 57, there is a provision to allow a government-recognised institution to take charge of a juvenile in conflict with the law as an alternative to detention in an observation home,” explains Kaushiki Sanyal, a researcher at the Parliamentary Research Service, Delhi, a public awareness body for parliamentary and legal affairs. Sanyal adds that the new Bill would also bring child beggars in its ambit under an amendment to Section 2(d) of the Act.

Lawyers feel that the amendments are positive and would lead to the better treatment of children. Upendra Roy, an advocate at Calcutta High Court, says, “If the amendment aids children, I am all for it. But it should come out of the law books to be properly implemented.” The new law would help in taking care of child beggars if NGOs were to take their responsibility, according to Gita Gupta, an advocate at Alipore Criminal Court, Calcutta. “Childless couples would also be able to adopt these children under the provisions of the new law,” she says. The Standing Committee has also recommended that the fine for disclosing the identity of a delinquent juvenile in the media should be raised from Rs 1,000 to Rs 25,000.

Joydeb Majumdar, a faculty member at the Jayaprakash Institute of Social Change, Calcutta, feels that the government’s move to include child beggars in the new law is to be welcomed since they form a major segment of ‘children in need of protection’. While cruelty to a juvenile is a cognisable offence, many children are forced to beg, he adds. “If a child is coerced into begging by his parents or a gang, they should also come in the ambit of the amendments,” he says.

The Bill makes it clear that the age of a juvenile has to be considered keeping in mind the date on which the offence was committed. The new provision for making the date explicit would apply to children who commit an offence, are on the verge of 18 years and are caught after they have already attained the age of 18. “These children have to be treated as juveniles under the new amendments suggested in Section 2(1) and Section 20 of the Act,” Majumdar observes.

The Bill also specifies that the authority to discharge or transfer a child rests solely with the state government and local authorities will take decisions regarding children who need to be sent to a home or an institution for rehabilitation.

The amendment to Section 33 also excludes any police officer from the inquiry process. “It states that the Child Welfare Committee would conduct an inquiry in the prescribed manner. If the child has no family or other means of support he can remain in a children’s home till he is rehabilitated or attains the age of 18 years,” explains Sanyal.

Child welfare workers differ on the involvement of police in the rehabilitation of these children. Ashish Roy mentions that since the police are an integral part of any system that tries to rehabilitate children in need, excluding them from the inquiry process may lead to problems. Others, including Majumdar, feel that the general perception about the police being negative, their presence may threaten a child’s rehabilitation process. “Since the overall objective is to make children feel comfortable, this amendment is a sound one. I say this after having trained police personnel for nearly eight years in children’s issues,” he explains.

The NGOs are, however, tempering optimism with caution. “While it is true that the government homes are not able to take care of all the children in need, it is important to recognise that NGOs must be properly equipped to adhere to the new law,” states Majumdar. “The government and NGOs must work together to improve the infrastructure of the latter so that they are able to protect the rights of the children in order to implement these new legal provisions,” says Sutap Sen, documentation officer of Sabuj Sangha, a child welfare organisation in Calcutta.