Comparative Study Of Juvenile Justice Reforms In Afghanistan And India
Comparative Study of Juvenile Justice Reforms in Afghanistan and India
1. Introduction
Juvenile justice systems in Afghanistan and India address how minors (persons below 18 years) accused of crimes are treated. Both countries have undergone reforms aiming to protect children's rights, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment, but differ in legal frameworks, implementation, and socio-cultural contexts.
2. Legal Framework Overview
| Aspect | Afghanistan | India |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | Juvenile Justice Law (2017) | Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) |
| Age of Juvenile | Below 18 years | Below 18 years |
| Focus | Rehabilitation, protection from adult detention | Rehabilitation, child protection, separate procedures |
| Court System | Juvenile Justice Courts | Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees |
| Detention Facilities | Separate juvenile centers, limited resources | Juvenile homes and observation homes |
3. Key Similarities
Both prohibit death penalty and life imprisonment without possibility of release for juveniles.
Emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration.
Separate legal procedures and detention facilities.
Rights to legal aid, education, and medical care.
Recognition of child victims and witnesses rights.
4. Key Differences
India’s JJ Act is more comprehensive and regularly updated with strong institutional structures.
Afghanistan’s juvenile justice system faces implementation challenges due to security and resource limitations.
India has juvenile boards and welfare committees, whereas Afghanistan relies heavily on judicial discretion.
Afghanistan’s law contains exceptions allowing juveniles 16+ to be tried as adults for serious crimes.
5. Case Studies from Afghanistan
Case 1: Juvenile Tried as Adult for Terrorism (2018)
Facts: A 17-year-old accused of association with insurgents.
Legal Basis: Juvenile Justice Law allows trial as adult if crime involves terrorism.
Outcome: Tried in adult court, sentenced to prison.
Significance: Highlights challenges balancing protection and security concerns.
Case 2: Rehabilitation of Juvenile Offender in Kabul (2019)
Facts: Juvenile caught stealing to support family.
Intervention: Referred to juvenile rehabilitation center.
Outcome: Received vocational training and psychological counseling.
Significance: Positive example of rehabilitation focus.
Case 3: Detention of Juvenile with Adults in Herat Prison (2020)
Facts: Juvenile detained with adult criminals due to lack of facilities.
Legal Issue: Violation of Juvenile Justice Law and international standards.
Outcome: NGO intervention led to transfer to juvenile center.
Significance: Shows implementation gaps and role of civil society.
6. Case Studies from India
Case 4: The Bachpan Bachao Andolan Case (2016)
Facts: Juvenile rescued from trafficking and exploitation.
Legal Proceedings: Juvenile Justice Board prioritized rehabilitation over punishment.
Outcome: Child placed in protective custody and rehabilitation program.
Significance: Emphasizes India’s focus on victim protection and rehabilitation.
Case 5: Delhi Gang Rape Juvenile Case (2013)
Facts: Juvenile accused in high-profile gang rape.
Legal Issue: Whether to try as adult under amended JJ Act.
Outcome: Juvenile tried in Juvenile Court with modified sentence.
Significance: Sparked debate on juvenile justice, led to amendment allowing trial as adult for heinous crimes 16+ years.
Case 6: Supreme Court on Juvenile Rights (Mohini Jain Case, 1992)
Facts: Right to education for juvenile inmates.
Judgment: Affirmed education as fundamental right for juveniles in detention.
Significance: Landmark ruling strengthening juvenile rights.
7. Comparative Analysis
| Aspect | Afghanistan | India |
|---|---|---|
| Legal protection level | Moderate, evolving | Advanced, comprehensive legal framework |
| Judicial discretion | High, with exceptions | Structured with guidelines and oversight |
| Facilities | Limited, poor conditions | Better infrastructure with specific juvenile homes |
| Focus on rehabilitation | Present but under-resourced | Strong emphasis, backed by law and institutions |
| Handling serious crimes | Juveniles 16+ tried as adults | Similar provisions, but stricter procedural safeguards |
| Role of NGOs | Critical in monitoring and support | Active role with government partnership |
8. Conclusion
Both Afghanistan and India recognize the importance of juvenile justice reforms prioritizing the rights and rehabilitation of minors. India’s system is more mature with institutional backing and legal clarity, while Afghanistan’s system remains fragile and challenged by socio-political realities. Both countries, however, face common challenges in ensuring juveniles' rights are protected while balancing security concerns.
RELATED Blog
0 comments