Joydev Mazumdar JP School of Social Change [Unauthorized summary. We tried to keep this as verbatim as possible. The text was edited for readability and flow] While fully endorsing Achinta's view that we need to work with the state, I believer in the idea that it is the state that has the power/authority to devise policies. The state is gradually decreasing in terms of role, leaving the livelihoods of millions of the people unaddressed. One data point: Consider promulgation of acts. It is responsibility of the civil society organizations to play an proactive role on welfare and empowerment of the individuals. One analysis of the total (2004-2005) budget shows that only 3 paise of 100Rs is spent on juvenile socio-maladjustment. 2002-2003 budget estimates was 14 crores. The act was passed in 2000. In the last year, it was raised to 18.90 cr. All of us here know that the budgetary provisions are economic issues that are looked at the centre, state and both. The expansion was frozen and the subject transferred to state sector in 2006. Another scheme for destitute women, NORAD, has been transferred to the states. My contention is that NGOs are not here to run a parallel government but as a complementary entity. A very young boy came to me with a proposal about the prosecution systems. He was under the impression that minor girls who are put in the homes cannot afford to pay the highest quality of legal service. If someone is there aiding the government to have a better prosecural system, it will be a great help. There is no system for keeping records of these children by the police. There are four probation officers in West Bengal. It is meagre compared to the need. In the homes, the level of the recording about the children is poor. Case files dont exist. It takes a lot of time. The JJ (Juvenile Justic) proceedings should take 4 months. The children stay for much longer. We need to put positive force to make the justice system more sensitive. How to make much more provision in the budget? JJ Act - is a great commentary. In Indian scenario, if a child is oppressed, we have to give them a legislation - a means to an end; for translating the policy into action. What kind of policy? Articles 14, 15 and 53 (state discriminates in favor of group). For example, reservation in the lower and upper house. Any form of reservation is discrimination. It is biased. Articles 39E and F, 42, and 40 have other constitutional provisions. How do we to implement them? We need the laws. We have a number of laws but we are concerned with 4-5 laws which are very important: JJ acts 1959 and 1986, budgetary provisions for poverty reduction, and ICDS in 6th plan. We are incarceration of the child without juvenile justice. The Indian Children Act was a state act and age is an important factor in the justice system. The person who defended a key case, Upendra Biswas. In the system, juvenile courts are handle cases until the person is 16yrs of age. He was put in the general jail based on Madhyamik exam information. The age limit is different in different states. The same offense in two place has different process. In West Bengal he will be put in the general court. In Punjab he will be put in the juvenile court. We are discriminating against the child. Putting the child with adult criminals is retribution. NGOs put pressure and we got 1986 act. Now under the act, the age is uniform across India - 16yrs for male, 18yrs for female. There was a landmark development. The justice system was divided into two broad avenues delinquent and non-delinquent. The JJ mechanism is for delinquents who account for more than 99%. The JJ board has members who have the civilian background and are not always judicial officers. This is a welcome development. No children can be put behind the bars. If late in the night a child is apprehended, a small juvenile police unit is present in every thana (police station). You can have juvenile welfare police officers. But there were certain difficulties. The CRC (Child rights convention) and UN meetings at Beijing and Riyadh - all the meetings produced the idea that client is the system and the child himself/herself is not delinquent. The pressure on the government resulted in a new act in 2000. One change is that the age of the child became 18. Two, the categorization of the child remained the same. Delinquent has been dropped. We have termed them CCL (child conflict with law) and CCNP (Child in Need of Care and Protection). As for the justice mechanism, the term court is no more. There is JJ board instead with three members, one of whom should be a woman and only one with judicial background. If the two other non-judiciary members agree, the opinion of the majority will prevail. The delinquency is starting to be perceived as a social process. The lapses in the social system are being been recognized. Offenses against the child is now a cognizable offense. Bail of a juvenile should not be granted blankly. Girls apprehended are given bails and handed over to fake mothers. Who is praying for the bail? Is the environment right? We need to sensitize ourselves, if the heat does not come from within us, we cannot put pressure on the government. Laws are important but they need to have a human face. Misinformation is worse than lack of information. Informed choices are important. You have to sensitize the entire state. ------------------------- Q. After the child is rescued, then we should immediately present them infront of the CWC. The magistrate was asking for 164. If 164 is not available, is the CWC is relevant? [Joydev]: 100s of examples where the magistrates are openly defying the CPC. CWC can issue a statement of the suo moto. Go through section 7 of this particular act. The judgement in the famous Prerna case. Q. Any guidelines on how much time to give to take the statement? [Joydev] I do not know. 164 will come only when CWC is challenged in the high court. The CWC can consider the verdict/versions of the metropolitan magistrates but they may not. There is no bar before putting the child before the court but there is a risk.