Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16




The introduction of several new offences such as sale & procurement of children, use of
children by terror groups, etc is one of the defining features of the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act
which had replaced the previous 2000 Act two year ago. Even though, Section 74-89 of the
2015 JJA seems similar to the Section 23 to 28 of the 2000 JJA, the chapter IX of the 2015
Act (Other Offences against Children) has not only allow more stringent punishment for
offenders in comparison to 2000 Act but also tackled some of the major issues of the offences
against children which was not covered either in the 2000 Act or any other statutory
provision of India. In fact, the very absence of certain provisions against those offences like
corporal punishment, abuse of children as cruelty, etc were the foremost reason for their
introduction under the new Juvenile Justice Act of 2015. In this report, we will discuss about
the provisions of Section 74 to 89 and its impact.

Section 74-Prohibition on disclosure of identity of children

This Section deals with ensuring the confidentiality of childs identity which includes the
child in conflict with law (CCL), child in need of care & protection (CNCP) and child
victim/witness of a crime and prevents the police from any record of the child for the purpose
of character certificate or otherwise in cases where the case has been closed or disposed of.
Section 74 can be considered as modified version of earlier Section 21 of the 2000 Act due to
following factors:

The title of the section has been completely changed since the objective of Section 74
is to protect the identity of children in general involved in such matter under any other
law for the time being rather than including only juvenile.
It prohibits the disclosure of childs identity during the investigation of the matter as
well as judicial procedure along with any inquiry which was absent under Section 21
of the 2000 Act.
Furthermore, the replacement of the word interest with best interest for giving
exception to disclosure indicates the legislative intention of protecting the childs
rights and needs (The word Best Interest is currently defined under Section 2(9)
was drawn from Rule 2(c) of 2007 Model Rules) whereas the Section 21 of 2000 Act
was silent about the scope of interest.
Also, the introduction of 6 months imprisonment & increasing of fine from Rs.
25,000/- to Rs 2,00,000/- makes the punishment under Section 74 more stringent than
the previous Act.

There is corresponding provision under Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence

(POCSO) as Section 23 which also talks about protection of childs identity akin to Section
74. However, it differs from Section 74 in terms of restricting the application only to sexual
offences against children and the term of imprisonment can be extended upto one year which
is not possible under Section 74.

Section 75-Punishment for cruelty to child

In the earlier Juvenile Justice Act of 2000, the provision of punishment for committing
cruelty to child was existed under Section 23. However, the provision was found lacking by
the legal and academic critics as inadequate and ineffective in preventing incidents of cruelty
against children. The reasons provided by the critics was that the punishment was the
imprisonment of mere 6 months or fine for all instances of cruelty irrespective of any
aggravating factors such as cruelty causing physical/mental incapacitation, etc. Moreover, the
act of abuse was not recognized as one form of cruelty under Section 23 due to which the
offenders for one of the common form of cruelty against child get scot free in a court of law.
Considering these lacunae and circumstance of public agitation to the ghastly incident of
Nirbhaya Rape case, the following changes were made for punishment in case of cruelty
under Section 75 of the 2015 Act:

Abuse was recognised as one form of cruelty against child.

The proviso under Section 75 protects the biological parents from punishment for
abandoning their child on account of factors beyond control. [This is a welcome move
since the earlier Section 23 would have punished the biological parents for
abandoning their child even though they had committed the act due to factors like
armed conflict, etc which were beyond their control].
The punishment has been increased from 6 months of imprisonment/fine to 3 years of
imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or both. [The drastic increase of punishment
would serve as effective deterrent for future offenders in general matters of cruelty to
It also allows for imposing greater level of punishment under following aggravating
factors in case of cruelty to a child:-
If the act of cruelty was committed by a person in charge of child care
organization, he shall be sentenced to five years of imprisonment and a fine of
Rs. 5,00,000/-
Also, if the cruelty results in physical/mental incapacitation, the offender shall
be sentenced to the term of imprisonment not less than 3 years but maximum
term of 10 years along with the fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-

Corresponding Rule under Juvenile Justice Model Rules of 2016- Rule 55 of 2016 Model
Rules provides guidelines to the police and court in cases involving child marriage, acts of
cruelty to child by person in charge of child care organization and acts causing
physical/mental incapacitation of child.

Rule 55(1) empowers the police/any officer authorized under the 2015 JJA to produce the
child before the Committee for appropriate directions and rehabilitative measures on
receiving information of child marriage. The Board or the Committee or the Childrens Court
has been empowered under Rule 55(2) to provide alternative rehabilitation of the child after
taking into considering his best interest and consultation with the childs parents/guardians in
cases of cruelty taking place in child care institution/school/any other place of care &
protection to a child while the Rule 55(3) mandates the Board or the Committee to provide
free medical treatment to a child through their direction on hospital/clinic failing which the
committee would be liable under Section 75 of 2015 JJA for act of negligence as cruelty to
The Kerala High Court opined that there must be a situation of abandonment or abuse or
exposure or neglect of a child or a juvenile by the person having actual charge of or control
over the child in order to prosecute the offender under Section 75 of 2015 JJA in the case of
Suresh Raj Purohit v Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau1

In the case of Priyanka Nikam v State of Maharashtra2, the Bombay High Court rejected the
anticipatory bail application of the appellant on the grounds of committing act of cruelty by a
person in charge of child care institution and the High Court opined on the need for
regulation of child care centres to prevent incidents of cruelty in paragraph 17 of the

In fact, the applicant was the custodian of the child during the day and the safety of the
child was her responsibility. Applicant cannot simply shirk the blame on the maid. The act of
the applicant in giving callous reply to the parents that it can be a self-inflicted injury speaks
volumes for itself. In fact, applicant ought to have informed the parents about the injury
sustained by the child and not wait for an inquiry by the parents. The conduct of the applicant
was extremely insensitive. It is in these circumstances that this Court is of the opinion that it
is high time that the State of Maharashtra frames Rules for issuing licence in respect of such
facility homes/care taking homes which are called as creche. In fact, these are facility homes
for working women. There is an urgent need to regulate the functioning of such institutions.
In the absence of any Rules, such institutions would crop up at every nook and corner without
shouldering any responsibility towards the infants and children admitted in such homes.

Section 76- Employment of child for begging

The offence of using children for the purpose of begging was always punishable under the
previous Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 through Section 24 which imposes the punishment of
maximum 3 years imprisonment and fine. However, it still failed to curb use of children for
begging to a major extent since the 2000 JJA as well as 2007 Model Rules were silent about
rehabilitation of child beggars and the punishment under Section 24 was found to be very
lenient for those offenders who often resorted to amputating/maiming children. But the new

2017 (2) KHC 853
Crml Anticipatory Bail Appln No. 2143 of 2016, decided on 15th December, 2016
provision of Section 76 under 2015 JJA can be considered as better drafted than that of
Section 24 of 2000 JJA for following reasons:

Section 76(1) states that whoever employs or uses any child for the purpose of
begging or causes any child to beg shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees:
[Increasing the punishment from 3 years to 5 years & fixing of Rs. 1,00,000/- fine is
the major change]

The major feature of Section 76 is the proviso for Section 76(1) which imposes the
punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a minimum term of seven years which
might be extend upto ten years & liability of Rs. 5,00,000/- fine for those offenders
who amputate/maim the child for the purpose of begging.

Further, Section 76(2) of the 2015 Act disqualify those persons as unfit for taking care
of a child as a guardian under Section 2(14) (v) of the 2015 Act who take assistance
from outside sources for the commission of using children for begging and he/she
shall be liable for punishment to the same extent as that of main offender.
However, the provision can be said as lenient towards the child beggars who are not
considered as the child in conflict with law under the proviso to Section 76(2) and
encourages their rehabilitation through producing them before the Committee and
removal of control from persons deemed unfit under Section 2(14)(v) of the 2015
Juvenile Justice Act.

Section 77- Penalty for giving intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug or

psychotropic substance to a child
The corresponding provision for Section 77 of 2015 act under the previous Juvenile Justice
Act of 2000 was Section 25 which imposed the maximum imprisonment of 3 years and a
liability of fine for the act of giving intoxicating liquor/narcotic drug/psychotropic substance
to a child. But the major lacunae of Section 25 was that it failed to address the growing
addiction of tobacco products among children and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Product
(Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply
and Distribution) Act, 2003 completely failed to prevent the sale of tobacco products to
minor due to its provision of maximum punishment of Rs. 200/- as fine.3 In fact, the Narcotic
Drug & Psychotropic Substance Act does not cover tobacco products which provided the
incentive for sellers of tobacco products to introduce these goods to minors without any harsh
penalty for such activities. It was observed by the Global Adult tobacco Survey that the age
of initiation of tobacco habits in India is 17 years & upto 20% of children in India are users of
Tobacco. More than 5500 children /Adolescents start tobacco consumption daily.4
Considering these circumstances, the Parliament brought in certain changes in the provision
of Section 77 which made it very different from Section 25 on various grounds:

It increased the extent of penalty to 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-
which was earlier mere the imposition of 3 years imprisonment & fine not clearly
defined under Section 25 of 2000 Act.
The inclusion of tobacco products under Section 77 would lead to deterring the
shopkeepers from selling tobacco products to minors on account of heavy penalty.
This kind of provision is unique to India
Furthermore, the exemption granted for giving intoxicating liquor/narcotic
drug/psychotropic substance to a child is now restricted to the order given by duly
qualified medicinal practitioner by removing the sentence or in case of sickness.
Thus, the removal would be helpful in preventing the unauthorized providing of these
substances by the parents/guardians without consultation with the qualified doctors.

However, the provision still fails to address the incidents of addiction for other products
such as whiteners among children since the term narcotic drug/psychotropic substance under
the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act are based on the definition given under the NDPS Act and the
unfortunate absence of whitener under NDPS Act makes it difficult for law-enforcers to curb
such cases.5 Meanwhile, whitener addiction, considered as first step towards alcoholism and
addiction to other drugs causes incidents of heinous crimes involving juvenile and deaths of

Pankaj Chaturvedi, Juvenile Justice Act: India is the only nation to impose harsh penalty on
sale of tobacco to minors, Firstpost, 16th January, 2016.
Supra at note 3
Chandan Haygunde, Whitener high gives cops a headache, Indian Express, 6th November,
overdose6, thus forcing the states of Uttarakhand7 and government of Delhi8 to ban sale of
Corresponding Rule under Juvenile Justice Model Rules of 2016- Rule 56 deals with the
procedures for the cases involving Section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act of 2015. The rule
mandates the police to enquire and file a FIR in case of a child found with intoxicating
liquor/narcotic drug/psychotropic substance and instructs them to produce the child before
the Board or Committee except in a situation where the child is not in condition to be
produced before the Board and require medical attention. The rule has provided vast powers
to the Board or the Committee regarding filing of FIR, enquiring the child care institution,
passing orders on rehabilitation of addicted children through rehabilitation centres, etc.
Furthermore, the Rule imposes the guidelines to the sellers of such products to raise
awareness among minors through inscribing the imposition of punishment of selling such
substances to minors on their products as well as their shop board.

Section 78- Using a child for vending, peddling, carrying, supplying or

smuggling any intoxicating liquor, narcotic drug or psychotropic substance

This section clearly prohibits the use of children for the purpose of carrying out the supply,
carrying out as well as smuggling of the intoxicating liquor/narcotic drug/psychotropic
substance as the title of the Section suggests. This provision was introduced for the first time
in the Juvenile Justice Act in the light of various reports suggesting the use of children by
drug peddlers and unscrupulous traders9 to ferry drugs through the border to avoid border
guarding troops10 and the absence of any provision in the 2000 Juvenile Justice Act/2007
Model Rules to tackle such issues. The main features of Section 78 are:

Radhika C Pillai, Whitener addiction on the rise among teens, Times of India, 14th June,
2014; Namita Bajpai, Two teenagers held for murder of 13-year-old in Allahabad, police
say they were addicted to whitener, The New Indian Express, 26th July,2017
Devendra Singh v State of Uttarakhand, First Bail Appln No. 556 of 2016, dated 25 th
October, 2016
Priyanka Sharma, Delhi Government sniffs out whitener addiction among teens, Mail
Today, 26th April 2017
PK Jaiswar, Children, too, have been involved in drug trafficking, The Tribune, 27th June,

Children used for smuggling across India-Bangladesh border, Deccan Chronicle,
Murshidabad, April 22, 2011, at http://
It clearly focuses on the liquor, drugs and other similar substances as well as the
tobacco products.
Section 78 puts a rigorous imprisonment on such person for a term which might be
extended upto seven years and shall also be liable to a fine up to Rs. 1,00,000/-

Corresponding Rule under Juvenile Justice Model Rules of 2016- Rule 57 deals with the
procedural aspects of cases involving Section 78. Under Rule 57(1), the police have the duty
to enquire the child & filing a FIR in the case of the child found to be vending, supplying,
carrying out or smuggling the intoxicating liquor/narcotic drug/psychotropic substance while
the Rule 57(2) emphasise on producing the child before the Board or the Committee in the
case of the child in need of care and protection.

In the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan v Union of India11, the Indian Supreme Court
highlighted the need for comprehensive policy to tackle the drug abuse among children
through establishing a standard operating procedure on enforcing the provisions of Section 77
and Section 78 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 79- Exploitation of a child employee

Section 79 of 2015 Act could be considered as similar to that of Section 26 of 2000 since
both the provisions prohibit exploitation of children for work and deals with the issue of child
labour. However, Section 79 differs with the previous provision due to following reason:

Section 79 has increased the penalty for such person with rigorous imprisonment for a
maximum term of five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees which
is more stringent as compared to earlier punishment of 3 years imprisonment under
Section 26.

By the replacing the term hazardous employment with the proviso for the term
employment, the scope of Section 79 can be expanded against the employers involved
in non-hazardous industries such as restaurants, etc. However, due to recent
amendment on Child Labour Prohibition Act, it would lead to confusion among law-

bangladesh-border-268 (Accessed on 6th December, 2017)
AIR 2017 SC 754
enforcers regarding the implementation of Section 79 on certain industries which
were relaxed on child labour by the 2016 Amendment.

Section 80-Punitive measures for Adoption without following prescribed


Section 80 is a new provision in itself for it deals with the imposing penalty for the non-
compliance of adoption procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. Since there was no
concept of adoption policy in the previous JJ Act, such provision was not needed. However,
Section 80 aims at curbing malpractices in adoption process through imposing punishment on
such organizations who offers or gives or receives, any orphan, abandoned or surrendered
child, for the purpose of adoption without following the procedures as provided in this Act.
Such person or organization shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend upto three years, or with fine of one lakh rupees, or with both:

However, in case where the offence is committed by a recognized adoption agency, in

addition to the above punishment awarded to the persons in-charge of, and responsible for the
conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the adoption agency, the registration of such agency
under section 41 and its recognition under section 65 shall also be withdrawn for a minimum
period of one year.

Corresponding Rule under Juvenile Justice Model Rules of 2016- Rule 58 deals with the
procedural aspects of cases involving Section 80 in which the rule allows the police on suo-
motu, or in the event of receiving information about the incident of the adoption process for
any orphan, abandoned or surrendered child without any compliance with adoption
provisions of 2015 JJ Act, register an FIR forthwith. Also, the Rule 58(2) clearly states that
such child shall be produced before the Board or the Committee for facilitating adoption
Specialized Adoption Agency and the board has the power to pass orders in case of non-
compliance by the Specialized Adoption Agency

Section 81-Sale and procurement of children for any purpose

This provision, as the title suggests, prohibit the activities of selling/procuring children for
any purpose and aimed at imposing harsh penalty on child trafficking. Since there was no
such provision under the previous 2000 Act, the introducing of Section 81 which imposes
punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall
also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees. Furthermore, in the case of offence is committed by
a person having actual charge of the child, including employees of a hospital or nursing home
or maternity home, in such case the term of imprisonment shall not be less than three years
and may extend up to seven years.

Corresponding Rule under Juvenile Justice Model Rules of 2016- Rule 59 deals with the
procedural aspects of cases involving Section 81 in which the role of the police and the Board
or the Committee is similar to the duties given under the Rules 57 & 58 of 2016 Model Rules.
However, it differs with other rules in the light of rehabilitating the child by the Board or the
Committee with the assistance of specialized adopting agencies and it has the power to pass
order for transfer of other children in case of offence under Section 81 was committed by an
Child Care Institution including Specialized Adoption Agency or by a hospital or nursing
home or maternity home, or a person associated with such an institution or agency and
recommend the state government to withdraw their registration for the time being.

Section 82-Corporal punishment

For a very long time, the issue of corporal punishment has been debated in our country.
However, before 2015, there was no provision under the 2000 Juvenile Justice Act or any
other statute which specifically deals with the corporal punishment. On account of various
incidents of death/injuries suffered by the children due to corporal punishment in the
school/child care institution/any other place related to care & protection of child, Section 82
was introduced for the first time in the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act and its objective is to
regulate the conduct of the persons working with children at different institutions through
preventing the abuse of corporal punishment through following measures:

It declares a penalty of fine of ten thousand rupees and for every subsequent offence,
imprisonment which may extend to three months or fine or with both on any person
who is in-charge of or employed in a child care institution, and who exposes a child to
corporal punishment with the aim of disciplining the child.

Section 82(2) also imposes penalty on such person who is employed in an institution
under Section 82(1) and who is convicted of an offence under that sub-section. The
section considers that such person shall also be liable for dismissal from service, and
shall also be debarred from working directly with children thereafter.
Section 82(3) imposes penalty on the person in-charge of the management of such
institution mentioned in Section 82(1) who does not cooperate with any inquiry or
follows the orders of the Committee or the Board or court or State Government when
any corporal punishment is reported in such institution.

The person in-charge of the management of the institution will be liable for
punishment with imprisonment for a term not less than three years and shall also be
liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

Corresponding Rule under Juvenile Justice Model Rules of 2016- Rule 60 of 2016 Model
Rules imposes a duty on every child care institution to have a complaint box at a prominent
place so as to facilitate the reporting of cases involving corporal punishment by the child or
anyone on his/her behalf. Also, the Rule 60(3) states that the complaint box will be opened in
the presence of a representative of the District Child Protection Unit once a month while the
Rule 60(4) & 60(5) empowers the Judicial Magistrate of First Class nearest to the Child Care
Institution to adjudicate such matters and order the Child Welfare Police Officer to take
appropriate measure on receipt of such complaint respectively.

The Board or the Committee under Rule 60 (6) has the power to transfer the child to
another child care institution for the best interests of the child. Also, the Judicial Magistrate
First Class has the power to take cognizance of the matter or direct the registration of FIR
against the person in charge of such institution in the event of the non-compliance during the
enquiry or any other procedure under Section 82(3) by the management under the Rule 60(7).
In fact, the management have to abide by the directions given by the Board/Committee/State
government under Rule 60(8) in the event any incident of corporal punishment in the child
care institution and in case of non-compliance, the Board on its own or on the complaint of
the Committee or the State Government shall direct the registration of an FIR under sub-
section (3) of section 82 of the Act. Finally, the person who was found guilty of repeat
offences under Section 82 shall stand disqualified from any further appointment under the
Act and the rules.
In Bhramanand Mishra v PIO, KVS Lucknow,12 the Central Information Commissioner has
emphasized on removal of employees involved in the case of corporal punishment from
working with children as well as ensuring children a violence-free environment in schools &
other child care institutions in the paragraph 18 to 20 of the decision:

18. According to this provision a teacher proved to be guilty cannot be given any work
associated with children. It's mandatory to dismiss him. If the management does not
cooperate the person in charge of the management will be made liable to imprisonment for
three years and also for fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. The Parliament took
serious note of the corporal punishment and does not want such teachers to be associated
with students any more. The institutions, like KVS, shall take note of the same. National
Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has prepared Guidelines for
Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools, which is available on
http://www.ncpcr.gov.in/view_file.php?fid=108 suggests following measures.

19. The 'right to remedy' includes providing (a) equal and effective access to justice; (b)
adequate, effective and prompt reparation for the harm suffered; (c) access to relevant
information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms. Effective reparation should
include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantee of non-
repetition. It is pertinent therefore that the State Governments which have to ensure their
State rules provide for better implementation of the RTE, 2009, make suitable legal
provisions for 'effective reparation' in cases of corporal punishment. All educational
institutions including schools and hostels, government as well as private, are custodians of
children during the time the children are on their premises. It is thus the responsibility of the
management/administration of the school/institution to ensure that children are safe from all
forms of violence, including corporal punishment. Therefore, along with the school teacher,
warden or the staff of the school/institution that has inflicted violence on the child, the
management/administration of the school/institution and their respective education
administrators/managements at the higher levels should also be held responsible.

20. In every case of violence against children the respective management/administration

should conduct an independent investigation, thus taking responsibility for what goes on in
school/institution and not rely simply on enquiries conducted by the school/institution. In any

case of child abuse, if the parent withdraws the case, the designated authority should take
cognisance of the offence and proceed without harming the child and taking strict action
against the accused.

Section 83-Use of child by militant groups or other adults

The use of children by the militant groups or gangs for their illegal activities has been a
common knowledge among our security agencies. However, such practices could not be
curbed by the law-enforcers to a major extent since such activity was not punishable in the
previous Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 in the absence of any such provision. Various
newspapers and reports highlight about the use of children as cooks, soldiers, informers, etc
by the Naxalite groups13 as well as North-Eastern terror organizations.14 These groups mostly
recruit children through abduction in order to offset the losses suffered by the militant groups
due to encounter with the security forces.15 The main features of Section 83 are as follows:

It bars any non-State, self-styled militant group or outfit declared by the Central
Government to recruit and use any child for any purpose and will be liable for the
punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and shall also be
liable to fine of five lakh rupees if they are found to commit such acts.

Section 83(2) states that if any adult or an adult group uses children for illegal
activities either individually or as a gang shall be liable for rigorous imprisonment for
a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakh
rupees. This provision should serve as deterrent effect on the leadership of terror
organization from depriving children of their rights and needs by abduction and using
them for their own malafide intentions.

PV Ramana, Children in Indian Maoist Ranks, Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis,
6th August, 2015; Swagata Raha, How will the new juvenile act factor in children recruited by
Naxals for heinous crimes, Firstpost, 12th January, 2016; IANS, Naxals use children to fight
in Chattisgarh, Jharkhand-United Nations, The Hindu, 7th October, 2017
Kaushik Deka, Insurgent groups in Manipur target children for recruitment again, India
Today, 18th May, 2012.
Section 84-Kidnapping and abduction of child

This provision is one of the defining aspect of Chapter IX of the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act.
It is very important to understand that the offence of kidnapping a child would be non-
bailable offence under the Juvenile Justice Act while it is currently a bailable offence under
the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, for punishing such activites, the JJ Act
instead of kidnapping and abduction or its various form or purpose has chosen to adopt the
already defined scenario available in IPC and therefore has referred to Section-359 to 369
IPC indicating that those provisions shall mutatis mutandis apply to a child or a minor who is
under the age of eighteen years and the Section or provisions of the section will be interpreted
in a same manner as mentioned in Indian Penal Code.

The major aspect about Section 84 of 2015 Juvenile Justice Act is that it makes
classification on the basis of imprisonment and first category is less than 3 years, second
category is 3years and upto 7 years and third category is more than 7 years16. Now, due to
Section-84 and 86, kidnapping and abduction of a person under 18 will be governed as under:

Rakesh Kumar Singh, Kidnapping of child a bailable offence under IPC becomes non-
bailable under JJ Act, Livelaw, 24th April, 2017
In the case of disabled child under 18 years of age, Section 84 aforesaid becomes triable by
a Childrens Court whereas in IPC there is no such differentiation on the ground of disability
as well as the act of Kidnapping/abduction with intention to steal from person shall be
punishable even in respect of a child under 18 years of age whereas the IPC would have
covered only a child upto 10 years.

Section 85-Offences committed on Disabled children

Section 85 imposes penalty on the offences committed on children having any kind of
disability which can be physical or mental and which is certified by a medical practitioner.
Whoever commits any of the offences, then, such person shall be liable to twice the penalty
which is actually for such offence.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this Act, the term "disability" shall have the same
meaning as assigned to it under clause (i) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996).

Section 86-Classification of offences and designated court

Section 86 clearly differs with the previous Section 27 of 2000 Juvenile Justice Act for it
lucidly classifies certain offences as mentioned under this Act. Under Section 86(1), if the
offence in this Act is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years, then, such
offence shall be cognizable, non-bailable and under jurisdiction of a Children's Court.

While the provision of Section 86(2) states about the offence which is punishable with
imprisonment for a period of three years and above, but less than seven years and considers
such offence as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Magistrate of First Class.

Finally, the Section 86(3) clearly provides that in case any offence, is punishable with
imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, then, such offence shall be non-
cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. This difference is very crucial for it
provides the chance for reformation to the child in conflict with law involved in the case of
offences other than heinous crimes.
Section 87-Abetment

Section 87 considers abetment of any offence as a punishment under this Act and states that
any person who abets any offence under this Act or involves in a conspiracy to perform such
offence and if the act committed is in consequence of the abetment, than such person shall be
punished with the punishment provided for that offence.

Explanation.--An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it

is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy or with the
aid, which constitutes the abetment.

Section 88-Alternative Punishment

Section 88 is the only provision under Chapter IX of 2015 Juvenile Justice which does not
differ with the previous provision of Section 28 of 2000 Act. Under this provision, it states
that when an act or omission is an offence under this Act and also under any other law
currently in force, then, irrespective of anything contained in any such law, the offender of
such offence will be punished under such law the punishment will be of high extent.

Section 89-Offence committed by child under this Chapter

Any child who commits any offence under this Chapter shall be considered as a child in
conflict with law under this Act. This provision aims at guiding the conduct of the law-
enforcers with the children involved in such offences mentioned under the Chapter IX of the
2015 Juvenile Justice Act. It has no corresponding provision in either 2000 Juvenile Justice
Act or 2007 Model Rules.