Abstract
Recent scholarship explains various causes of children in conflict with the law (CCL) by the discipline of criminology across the globe. However, despite this discourse, it has been unable to adequately address the intricate relationship between the local context and how children are accused before they become embroiled with the Juvenile Justice System (JJS) in India. This article explores such contextual dynamics surrounding children’s everyday relationships in different spaces they primarily associate with, which play a role in pushing them into entanglement with the legal system. The framework of child rights is used, which emphasises the voices of children, in an attempt to lay bare the nuanced contexts that lead to conflict with the law. I seek to foreground this argument through fieldwork conducted within an observation home (OH) during 2021–2022. Methodologically, this study adheres to situated ethics, ensuring ethical engagement with participants found through the purposive sampling method. Ten in-depth interviews were conducted with both school dropouts and school-going children who turned CCL, admitted to an OH, including three of their parents. The findings of the study indicate that children are conveniently accused, negatively framed and humiliated locally within the space of community, school and peer relations, including different disputes between families/communities, which potentially push them towards the JJS that impact schooling.
Background of the Study
The discourse on children in conflict with the law (CCL) has become a universal concern for child rights activists and rights organisations who relentlessly work to safeguard child rights. When such underage young people are found in any alleged offences and legal charges are imposed, the Juvenile Justice System (JJS) comes into play, including admitting them into an observation home (OH) that shelters during the pendency of inquiry. The latest annual report of the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) shows that CCL are charged under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Special Local Laws (SLL). As per these statistics, 37,444 children were apprehended in 2021, of which 0.76% were under 12 years of age, 23% between 12 and 16 years and 76.2% were in the age group of 16–18 years (NCRB, 2021). These numbers showed that a significant percentage of children are assumed to be school-enrolled, including those aged 6–14 years who are entitled to free and compulsory education granted by the Right to Education (RTE) Act 2009. When these children are admitted into the OHs, they are forced to be confined for months and years due to lack of a speedy process, as argued by Bajpai (2018). In this light, children become victims more than offenders (Mukundan, 2015).
Furthermore, this area of research is dominated by criminological theories and methods that ignore the issue of poverty and socio-economic inequalities (France, 2015). The data produced in positivistic inquiry, which deals with numbers and per cents (Smith, 2000), fail to offer micro-level insights to understand the local context of how children become CCL. Balagopalan (2011) suggests that community-centred research is helpful while studying marginalised children to capture their everyday realities. Therefore requires understanding beyond the issue of poverty. Therefore, a micro-level perspective is needed to discover the local dynamics of how children are shaped as CCL, thus called ‘offenders’ in the eyes of the system. It attempts to unravel the everyday relationships of children with different spaces in which they primarily associate. The present qualitative inquiry attempts to capture the voices of children in the light of being CCL and its consequences of further interaction with JJS. This inquiry is crucial in light of the UNCRC’s (1989) articles 12 (1) and 13 (1), which allow children to exercise the right to express and share their views and concerns on matters important to them. Therefore, it is vital to understand their voices as they are vulnerable due to being institutionalised in the OH that curtails liberty and freedom.
Methods and Analysis
Qualitative research methodology and methods were employed for data collection in the OH during 2021–2022. The study was conducted in an OH, located in one of the Indian states. It was accessed through the permission granted by the authority of the concerned department. Before data collection, I engaged widely with children and provided awareness on child rights considering vulnerability. I approached 10 child participants (male only) purposively for the in-depth interviews aged between 13 and 18 years, placed in OH (judicial custody) for being CCL and significantly booked under petty and the POCSO Act 2012. Most participants were school-enrolled before admission into OH and had no history of previous offending, most of them belonging to underprivileged Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), Backward Classes (BC) and Minority communities. The interviews were transcribed from the local language to English and analysed with a focus on children’s experiences with local spaces as reflected through their voices.
Given the sensitivity of the research, the situated ethics by Simons and Usher (2000) were applied, who emphasise that ethical decisions must be made in situ concerning the specific research context and positionality, which must lead to ethical values. In this light, multiple consents were sought from parents and other related actors before interviews with children, as suggested by Henriksen and Schliehe (2020) in the case of researching children in closed institutions. The data were carefully treated due to issues of confidentiality and legal restrictions. To protect participants and the site of the study, it was decided not to reveal the location of the site. All names of participants were anonymised, and dummy names were used across the report.
Findings
The findings depict nuanced local contexts that lead children into JJS, which are explained by three themes that emerged from the narratives of children and parents. They are (a) the influence of the offending peer network, (b) accusing and negative frames in community spaces, and (c) disputes and differences between families/communities. These themes are discussed with the narrative of children and parents that explains a specific contextual background before they become CCL and were admitted to OH.
Influence of Offending Peer Networks
This theme emphasises different offending peer networks in which children directly and indirectly take part. The petty offences include any theft related to economic property. The following interview excerpts illustrate how children are booked for petty offences due to associating with offending peers. Rakhi is a 16-year-old bright student who finished his standard 10 and got admitted to standard 11, belongs to the SC community. According to his mother, BL, he studied in a private English medium school from primary to higher secondary and cleared with a decent percentage of marks. After admission to a college for further studies, he got to know different people around him and became friends with them as well. Rahki became close to a person who was an idli vendor in the same location where he used to visit for breakfast. As BL says, the idli vendor used to take Rakhi out wherever he went. Without knowing his background, Rakhi started hanging out with him. BL describes how her son got into legal cases below:
There used to be a person who run a idli shop, was around 25 years old in our area. This person used to feed my son idli and Dosa freely and get his work done. Like that, my son became friends with him who used to take him here and there to roam outside. My son also mad about bikes riding, so he is attracted to that as well. One day, that person took my son to a break ATM to steal money which led to file a case against him (BL, 45, Mother of Rakhi)
As Rakhi accompanied the adult offender to break the ATM, so the police also filed a case against him and sent him to OH. Similarly, Sohail is 15 years old, belongs to a minority community, and was found to be an enthusiastic student keen on learning hardware repair. According to him, he finished his higher secondary school and was preparing for further studies during vacation. One day, Sohail’s friend came to his home and requested him to join him for a joyful bike ride. Without knowing that the bike was stolen by his friend, he joined. During the interview, Sohail narrated what had happened in this regard. One day, my cousin called and informed me that he got a call from the Police to enquire about me. He added that I and my friend had stolen a bike, and our visuals were recorded on CCTV. I told him that the bike used for the ride belonged to his uncle. However, he suggested me to visit the Police station and talk to them. So, we went to the police station and told them what had happened. After 48 hours, the Police brought my friend to the station, as he ran away to his uncle’s place. Until then, I was kept inside the police station, which was a day and night together (Sohail, 15)
Sanketh shares a similar story as Sohail and Rakhi, who was studying in standard seven at the time the police apprehended him and put him in OH. I came here in a bike theft case. My friend had done it. One day, he brought a bike and asked me to go for a ride, which I drove. Our visuals recorded on CCTV. So, the Police caught me up and sent me here (OH). Now I’m in trouble… (...) (Sanketh, 13)
The narratives shared by Rakhi’s mother, BL, Sohail and Sanketh reflect how they were booked for being associated with offending peers and individuals. Interestingly, all of these children were school/college-enrolled students before admitting to OH. As a result, Rakhi, Sohail and Sanketh spent 30, 15 and 60 days in OH, respectively, remaining absent from school. Apart from offending peer networks, the local spaces play a significant role in contributing to pushing children towards JJS, as discussed below.
Accusing in the Community Space
The word community is used with a sense of space where children are primarily associated. It includes a colony/street, village, school or an area where a group of families live together. These spaces are discussed concerning children’s experiences with regards to receiving different judgemental, negative labels that demean them.
Pavan is a 13-year-old school dropout and belongs to an Adivasi community. He migrated along with his parents to a neighbouring district for livelihood. According to him, his family engages in labour work under a local landlord. He says his father and uncle had committed a money theft from the temple and escaped from the place due to fear and of consequences. As a result, the villagers targeted Pavan who took him to the Gram Panchayat for interrogation. Pavan describes what he went through at the hands of villagers:
The village Sarpanch and others had suspected that I too had committed theft. So they filed a police complaint against all of us. Due to fear, my father and uncle escaped to hide from them. The villagers took me to Gram Panchayat and started beating me up to share information about them. Later they sent me to the police station, where they kept me inside for a few days before coming to OH (Pavan, 13)
Kaif is 17 years old and was admitted to OH for an alleged breaking of a pan dabba. He recalls his experience with school and family and how they accused him then. He says he studied till standard four and dropped out of a locally reputed English medium private school. His parents wanted him to study well, so they admitted him to such a school. Since he was an active and playful boy in school, he used to fight with others and disturb the class as well. Consequently, it became difficult for teachers to manage him in and outside of the classroom. As an outcome, they found him problematic and frequently called his parents to the school to raise complaints about his conduct. He recalls his childhood and school experience at the age of nine years:
Hum… the teachers used to abuse and beat me up in the school for every small mistake. They used to look down on me in front of others in the classroom. These things used to happen regularly which made me angry with them. One day, I created a ruckus in school by locking the classroom from outside. They used to say that I was not fit for study. During prayer assembly, they used to announce openly that I did ‘bad’ things and used to warn not repeat them again. So, they used to prioritise me to play band, and odd work in school. They used to praise me that I was well suited for these activities but not for study. Therefore, I did not like the school and lost interest in continuing (Kaif, 17)
Sanjay too shares the same schooling experience as Kaif. He recalls the humiliating treatment at the hands of his school teacher:
When students fail to complete homework work, then they used to punish such as making wall chairs, beating with sticks, making sit-ups, keeping the pen in between fingers, and pressing. If anyone comes late to school, they make us stand in the sun. It is a co-education school, we feel ashamed of being punished in front of the girls’ students. In addition, a sir used to particularly target me by asking me to stand up in the class to answer his questions. He often used to say I was not fit for study, he used to suggest I should engage in any work instead of attending school (Sanjay, 15)
Though Sanjay was booked for an alleged POCSO offence, the inquiry into his school life reveals how children faced severe negative treatment that eventually frame them as ‘bad’ and ‘dull’, which excludes them from educational opportunities. It shows that school and community spaces equally persecute them in various ways.
Disputes and Socio-economic Factors
The issues of disputes between families and socio-economic differences emerged as another crucial forces that paved the children towards the JJS. These disputes include a history of family quarrels and revenges and instant clashes locally, observed as major factors for booking children. Furthermore, the issue of caste/class differences comes into play when underage children are involved in romantic relationships, which are objected to by the girl’s parents. The narratives of children and parents are shaped in two ways, which pull children into legal cases.
Abhay is 15 years old and studying in standard 10. He was booked under a POCSO case for having a friendship with a girl who is his distant relative, childhood friend and classmate studying in the same school. During the conversation with Abhay’s elder brother, Ajith narrates how it led to his brother being booked:
Ajith: It is a family quarrel. He came to Jail because we had family quarrels. They (girl’s family) also know some politicians, so they could file a case on my brother. It was all false cases which ruined my brother’s life. They filed a case just because my brother spoke to that girl, who is been friends since childhood. SK: Why the girl father target only your brother, Abhay? Ajith: Because he did not have any other reason to fight with us. So he found this is the only reason by pulling my brother into the issue, since he talked to his daughter. Though her dad pressured her not to talk to my brother Abhay, they continued to do so. This is why they filed a case against my brother and sent him to Jail in the name of a love case (Ajith, 23)
Suvarna, the mother of Sairaj, describes another incident, same as Abhay, where her son was booked under the POCSO Act. She says:
It was a game played by that girl’s mother to blackmail my son. That girl’s mother has a boyfriend who used to beat this minor girl who became a barrier to their privacy. Due to this harassment, she wanted to someone to care for her, and she managed to become friends with my son. This friendship leads them to engage in regular phone call conversations. On her birthday, my son took part in it, where she shared her entire family problem with him. That is how they become friends, which leads to a love story and later filed case. Though the girl had agreed that there was no mistake of my son, but the Police said she is a minor, which cannot be considered her opinion as valid. Then I said that my son is also a minor, why does his acts have to count as valid? He was is just 15 years (girl age was 13), but the Police did not consider my objection, registered a case and sent him to OH (Suvarna, 47, mother of Sairaj)
Furthermore, I attempt to draw two more examples from the cases of Yuvraj and Sam below. Yuvraj, a 17-year-old, studying in standard 12, belongs to the SC community and fell in love with a girl of the same age from the SC sub-caste. He says, when the girl’s family came to know about their relationship, they started to abuse the girl, telling her not to talk to Yuvraj. As they continued to do so, one day the girl’s father called for a Panchayat (an open public dialogue to settle the matter) in the village Gram Panchayath to warn Yuvraj. After learning the details of the matter, the community headmen asked Yuvraj to apologise to the girl’s father and warned him to stay away from her. Over time, the girl’s parents started seeing marriage matches for her; as an outcome, she pressured Yuvraj to marry. Agreeing to her, Yuvraj did accordingly. This act angered the girl’s family, who beat her and dragged to the police station to file a case against Yuvraj. The police filed a case under the POCSO Act and put him in OH, where he spent 50 days. Yuvraj argues that the girl’s father disapproved of their relationship due to caste differences.
Similarly, Sam is a standard 10 student belonging to a BC community, who also experienced the same as Yuvraj, but in his case, it was a religious difference that led him to be booked under the POCSO. The main objection of the girl’s family was that Sam belonged to a different religious community, which angered them. The voices of Suvarna and Ajith highlight that the girl’s parents booked cases for vested interests, whereas Yuvraj and Sam were booked for having differences in caste and religious resentments.
Discussion
A study in OHs of five Indian states found that ‘not all children who break the law are punished, but those who receive the most severe punishment are those without social, political or fiscal capital with which to escape the law’ (Parackal and Panicker, 2019). A similar study of youth in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the UK context found that youth are negatively labelled by the media, authorities of schools and the public, who see them as ‘at risk’ of offending because they resist the power of those dominant forces (Harragan et al., 2018). It also observed that the majority of lower-class children tend to be incarcerated, charged, convicted and sentenced than those from the elite class (Parackal and Panicker, 2019). Furthermore, while assessing the juvenile justice youth policy in the American context, Heitzeg (2009) argues that it adversely impacts the youth of racial minorities in their schooling, which leads to lower completion of school and dropout as compared to their white counterparts. Consequently, the involvement of JJS in the lives of children forces them to drop out and impact their social relations and self-image (Hirschfield, 2003). On the other hand, JJS centres lack academic facilities, and children are prone to losing cultural capital, academic credit, language and reading-writing skills, which pose challenges to their re-entry into society, school and community (Rita, 2018).
This literature shows that children and young people from underprivileged communities are greatly affected by both social relationships and the legal system, as shown in the studies discussed, including the present research. As a result, it poses different challenges, including refusal to re-enrol them back into school (Rao, 2018). Therefore, it is argued that children face vehement abuse, accusation, humiliation and stigma before and after entering into JJS, which maximises school dropouts and impacts social relations, portraying them as ‘offenders’, demons and threats to social order. Thus, Ganguly (2023) observes that preventing children from crime and protecting them from becoming victims of the same is important to protect the children’s rights.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the narratives of children and parents highlight that offending peer networks and community spaces, including schools, have emerged as potential forces that accuse and frame children negatively, driving them into JJS. This includes various familial and caste/religious differences, observed as another pushing factor of children into legal cases. The POCSO Act has emerged as a significant means through which it is weaponised against children for the vested interests of families/communities due to differences in caste/class and religious resentment. The voices of children and parents reflect that both social forces and legal systems collectively accuse, stigmatise and vehemently exclude children from educational opportunities and ordinary social lives, contributing to further marginalising them.
