Custodial death of a child and juvenile justice system

The manner with which the child was treated is testimony to the callousness and scant respect for the relevant laws

The tragic death of a 14-year-old child in police custody at West Cantt Police Station, Peshawar, has not only shocked the public but has been the hot topic of emotional discussions on television and social media. Circles within the police termed the incident a suicide while the relatives described it as a result of torture. However, the CCPO Peshawar must be credited for swift action entailing the arrest of the officer-in-charge and other staff members meant to quell an outpouring against the atrocity.

The real cause of the death will be determined by a judicial inquiry — a requirement under the law. However, this and many other such incidents in the past have raised questions about the initial and in-service training system, use of force, conduct, and inspections and supervision within the police organisation.

Before making any comments, pro and contra, it is pertinent to examine the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018. In light of the act, it can be determined where the fault was. In the first instance, why was the child detained in a lockup? Why were his parents not informed? Why did the concerned officer-in-charge not assess the emotional conditions of the child? Was the case dealt with by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector and supervised by an SP or a DSP? All of these aforementioned points need to be satisfied as per requirements of the law.

Under the Juvenile System Act, the first consideration is the “best interest of the child”. This must be the basis for contemplating any decision regarding the child in order to ensure fulfillment of his basic rights and needs, identity, social wellbeing, and physical, emotional and psychological development.

Under the same law, an alternative process has been provided for determining the responsibility and treatment of a juvenile on the basis of his social, cultural, economic, psychological and educational background without resorting to formal judicial proceedings.

This law also provides for Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre and juvenile courts. In such a centre, a juvenile may be kept and given education, vocational or technical training for his mental, moral and psychological development and includes certified institutions, juvenile tutoring institutions, borstal institutions, vocational centres, and darul amaan and women crises centres established by the government or by voluntary organisations. The law also envisages observation homes where a juvenile is to be kept after apprehension.

Every juvenile or a child who is accused of an offence shall have the right of legal assistance at the expense of the state — a juvenile must be informed about his/her rights available under the law by a legal practitioner within 24 hours of taking him/her into custody. The same law makes it obligatory for a legal practitioner, appointed by the government or by the Juvenile Court, to provide legal assistance to a juvenile offender.

Under the law, a juvenile on arrest has to be kept in an observation home and the officer-in-charge has to immediately inform the guardian of the juvenile as well as the probation officer. It is mandatory to release a juvenile accused of a bailable offence on bail. In case it is believed that such a release may expose him/her to criminals or other dangers then (s)he may be placed under the custody of a suitable person or Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres; but, under no circumstances, shall be kept in a police station.

The upshot of this discussion is that the aforementioned episode, together with other incidents, is a demonstration of a lack of knowledge of the law to deal with a child under the relevant laws. This also substantiates lack of proper training, lack of supervision, inspection, and non-adherence to law and policy.

The tenure under the policy of a government servant at one place is two to three years but the said SHO was placed at the same post for the last 10 years, reflecting a flagrant violation of the tenure policy.

The manner with which the child was treated is testimony to the sense of callousness and scant respect for the relevant laws. Besides, this also proves lack of training and awareness of the law to deal with a child.

Had the officer in charge been conscious of his legal obligations under the Juvenile Justice System Act, such an incident would not have happened. Had there been proper supervision by the superintendent of police and inspections by inspecting officers, the system would have operated in accordance with the law. But unfortunately, the regime of formal and informal inspections is not really in vogue. It must be understood that inspection is an effective tool to measure and maintain quality and maintain but now is seldom being done within time.

The other serious problem is with the training. Low quality instructors are unable to inculcate desired values and impart proper knowledge of law. Thus, the product passing out of those institutions are not shaped for the duties envisioned in the law and policies framed thereunder.

It is high time for the authorities to make a proper assessment through a third party in the area of the conduct of police with the citizens, with an aim to revamp the whole training programme, in particular, for constables, assistant sub-inspectors and sub-inspectors. Moreover, the government should establish and notify rehabilitation centres and observation homes, and meet all the requirements of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 24^th, 2021.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.