ABSTRACT:
Many day-to-day car accidents, unfortunately, take place on the roads of India, but the recent Pune Porsche car case stands out from the others. A Porsche car was driven in an intoxicated state by the son of a Pune-based realtor. The car ruthlessly rammed a woman and a man who were on a bike. Unfortunately, both of them lost their lives due to the incident. What made the whole country boil in outrage was that the teen was granted bail within just 15 hours of the car accident on conditions that are considered nothing but quite insubstantial. This research paper attempts to scrutinize the case as well as the legal, ethical and wealth-related quandaries involved. The scholar attempts to answer the questions raised in this case study, such as what is the law that applies to the case if it was followed accordingly and what are the legal disabilities involved. Secondly, is the public outrage regarding the case justified regarding the decision taken by the Juvenile Justice Board to grant him bail on lenient conditions? Thirdly, should this incident be considered as a situation where a juvenile should be tried in a court of law as an adult taking into consideration the seriousness of the crime?
Note: The identity of the accused minor has not been mentioned in this paper as it has ‘officially’ not yet been disclosed by the authorities since it is against the law to leak any details concerning an accused minor, taking into consideration the question of his safety and privacy.
KEYWORDS:
Minor, road accident, juvenile crime, Pune, corruption, parenting, police, court, law.
INTRODUCTION:
On the fateful morning of 19th May in Pune, at around 2:15 am a high profile case was registered in the Yewada Police station where a minor belonging to a wealthy family allegedly crashed the Porsche owned by his father into a motorcycle while driving it under the influence of alcohol resulting in the instant death of two individuals who were reported to be software professionals. This horrifying incident resulting in the death of two civilians apparently due to the carelessness and abuse of privilege by an affluent teenager sparked widespread public outrage, especially on the surprisingly lenient bail conditions granted to him by the Juvenile Justice Board which included working with the traffic police of Pune for a set period, writing a 300 words essay on road safety, studying traffic rules, and undergoing medical counselling.
However, things took a turn when on 22nd May The Juvenile Justice Board cancelled its previously granted bail and remanded the minor to the Children Observation Centre in Pune taking into consideration the severity and gravity of the crime and the widespread public sentiments surrounding the case. This upholds the Juvenile Justice Board’s attempt to balance rehabilitative measures for offences committed by a minor and the seriousness of heinous crimes committed by a minor.
What is more interesting in this ongoing case is the desperate attempts of the family of the accused minor, especially his father, his mother, and his grandfather) is making to prove him innocent and to protect their family image. But in their continuous attempts to do so they have complicated the case further and to prevent a crime committed by their successor, they have resorted to committing more crimes, repeatedly turning a blind eye to the loss of two innocent lives due to a mistake committed by the accused revealing no sense of moral accountability or self- remorse. It highlights the corrupted mentality of affluent people who consider money as the key to opening the locks of justice. The fact that they were even able to dare to commit the crimes to some extent explains and reinforces the administration’s proneness to corruption. Certain other issues such as the details of the legal disabilities involved in the case, the despotic nature of affluent teenagers and their confidence that their family would back them up no matter what, as well as the difference between yes parenting and proper parenting would be further explained to leave no tables turned as the readers proceed with the paper.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
This paper is descriptive and the research is based on primary sources, mainly The Indian Penal Code and secondary sources which involve websites, newspaper articles, and blogs posted in alignment with the selected topic of the paper and is doctrinal. For a reasonably detailed analysis of the Pune Porsche Case and how it can be and should be used as a landmark example for current and future generations to come as to the importance of a sense of responsibility, legal awareness, moral accountability, and value of human life, articles and websites containing information regarding the topic were thoroughly read and represented in my own words throughout the research paper along with relevant personal insights.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
- Pune Porsche case: Is it not confinement if juvenile is kept in custody after bail, asks HC
This news article gives a brief outline of the chronological development of the Pune Porsche case and also includes recent developments in the story. It also includes the recent opinion given by the Bombay High Court on whether keeping a juvenile in custody post bail amounts to confinement or not and mentions the recent update on the release of the accused minor’s father on bail. It helps us understand the case in layman’s terms, which avoids the usage of complex legal provisions and makes it a convenient read for even a person unfamiliar with the legal quandaries. References have been taken from this source to adopt the simplistic nature of the writing and have also been explained in detail to produce a relevant output for the readers.
- The Pune Porsche Case: Unpacking the Law on Bail, the ‘Essay’ and the Child-Adult Question
This blog gives an insight into the legal aspect of this case. It talks about the law on bail in juvenile offences and the judicial interpretations of the relevant provisions. It uses case laws related to similar legal provisions to provide a comprehensive and analytical study of the legal domain of the Pune Porsche Case. It also mentions the controversy associated with the legal validity of treating and trying a child as an adult in case of offences committed by the accused minor. References have been taken regarding the associated legal provisions and have been interpreted and reframed according to personal opinion and added perspectives.
- Critical analysis of interpretation of age factor of a juvenile in Pune Porsche case.
This newspaper article provides us with an in-depth analysis of the interpretation of the age factor in juvenile crimes and gives a plethora of examples of cases which can be considered as judicial precedents to determine the age-related debate of juvenile offences. It talks about the Juvenile Justice Act and the recent amendment that has been brought to it in 2015 to improve its effectiveness. The cases have been read thoroughly and accordingly, new ideas and perspectives have been added to the paper while adhering to the learnings from the cases.
CAN A CHILD BE TRIED BY LAW AS AN ADULT?
There has been a rampant misunderstanding about the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act. The accused minor in the Pune Porsche case was 17 years and 8 months old, thus only four months short of being a major. A difference of four months technically should not be considered a difference between a major and a minor especially if the charges under which he or she is booked are as serious as the current case. The applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act to minors and “adolescents” (16-18 years of age) should carefully be studied. A similar incident in the past revives our memory about the question as to whether children should be tried in a court of law as adults taking into consideration the seriousness of the crime committed.
In the famous case of Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors popularly known as (The Nirbhaya Rape Case) the minor involved, who was reported to have committed the most heinous part of the crime, was simply sent to a remand home for 3 years by the court because he was a minor, while his accomplices were ordered death penalty.
This verdict given by the Supreme Court was even despised by her mother who thought that if strict measures were not taken such actions would fail to serve as precedents that deter others from committing a similar crime. In contrast, out of all the 5 convicts, he was the most brutal and heinous with the victim.
This incident sparked a debate nationwide about whether or not minors who are mentally, emotionally, and physically capable of committing the offence and understand the consequences attached to the commission of such an offence be tried in a court of law instead of a Juvenile Justice Board and thus be treated as an adult and be eligible for being charged under sections of the Indian Penal Code. In 2015 amendment to the Juvenile Justice Bill was passed by the Ministry of Women and Child Development and it reduced the age of criminal liability of a minor from 18 years to 16 years and stated strictly that such circumstances should only be followed in rare circumstances such as rape, murder, robbery, taking mainly into consideration the gravity of the offence and the mental capacity of the minor.
Thus it brings us to a question as to ‘should’ a child be tried as an adult rather than ‘can’. As the 2015 amendment rightly suggests, if a child is below 18 years of age but is soon to be a major, then taking into consideration the nature and seriousness of the crime committed by him or her, the minor should be tried as an adult as it is implied that the minor had the physical and emotional maturity to commit the crime.
Like the Nirbhaya case or in the current Pune case minors accused of committing grave offences are set free, they would never be able to realize the gravity of their own mistake and the very purpose of delivering justice to the victim would be defeated. It is beneficial for the interest of the minor and society that he is under the same treatment that an adult would have received for the commission of a similar crime. We must not forget that our country relies on judicial precedents to deliver future judgments. And if such precedents are never set in the first place, these loopholes will never get filled.
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA & THE PUBLIC OPINION:
Children are the bright future of our country, and they need to be nurtured properly and carefully to make sure that they are growing up in a safe environment. But sadly there has been a recent surge in Juvenile Crime rates in the country over the last decade. A juvenile is a person who has not yet completed 18 years of age. The term ‘juvenile delinquency’ is used to define any crime which has been committed by the Juvenile or any crime that the accused minor was a part of. The Juvenile Justice System of India is broadly based on constitutional mandates and international covenants. Children in this context can be broadly classified into two categories, “children in need” and “children in conflict with the law”.
For the former, there is the Child Welfare Committee which caters to the needs of the children and protects their rights while for the latter there is the Juvenile Justice Board which deals in criminal cases where the accused is a minor. Provisions have been made for the establishment of Observation Homes and Special Homes for the “Children in conflict with law”, and Comprehensive Children’s Homes for the juveniles who require care and protection. Under institutional care, children have access to services including education, health, nutrition, de-addiction, treatment of diseases, vocational training, skill development, life skill education, counselling, etc. to help them assume a constructive role in society.
Other non-institutional options can be considered such as foster care or group foster care which aims at placing children in a wholesome family environment that is much distinguished from the child’s biological family, which is to be accordingly selected, qualified, and approved, as being fit for providing care to children. The Judiciary has repeatedly time and again expressed its views and opinions on the implementation of the laws catering to juveniles.
Before granting bail to juveniles, especially in the age group of 16-18 years, a proper detailed and objective psychological assessment of the juvenile should be done by expert psychologists or a team of psycho-social experts to determine if or not the juvenile has the mental capacity or emotional maturity to understand the seriousness or gravity of the crime committed and the related consequences, otherwise, the very purpose of the act would not be served which aims at establishing a child-friendly justice system in India. This was however not done in the Pune Porsche Case. The accused was granted bail without proper psychological screening being conducted. It was later discovered that the juvenile Justice Board was bribed by the family of the accused.
In general, the public tends to react more sharply to juvenile crimes rather than the same crimes being committed by adults, for several reasons:
- Children are considered to be innocent and vulnerable. They are the youth of today and leaders of tomorrow. Thus when a juvenile commits a crime, it can shatter the social image of innocence, leading to shock, outrage and fear of the malicious tendencies that infect the future generations of the country.
- When a child, who is expected to be under the guidance and authority of adults in and around his social atmosphere, breaks the law there is a sense of deep betrayal and disappointment in the youth of the country. This betrayal can provoke strong emotional reactions from the public.
- Juvenile crimes may receive disproportionate media coverage due to their sensational nature, which can amplify public reactions. In the Pune Porsche case though details in a juvenile proceeding are never to be disclosed to the public it was still made the headlines by various newspapers.
- While the justice system emphasizes rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, the public may demand accountability and punishment, especially for serious crimes, as they are often driven by sentiments of sympathy for the victim but not the ‘minor’ who committed the offence. When they perceive leniency in the juvenile justice system, it can lead to frustration and outcry, taking note of the fact that a significant proportion of the population is not even aware of the fact that a separate justice delivery system exists for minors.
YES-PARENTING: AN ACCOMPLICE TO JUVENILE CRIMES
‘Yes-Parenting’, which is also known as permissive parenting, is a term used to define the phenomenon where parents permit their children to do and buy them whatever they wish for. Though this may ordinarily sound very sweet and loving, some aspects of such parenting can be positive but just like anything and everything else, it may also have negative consequences which are blissfully ignored, especially if yes parenting is followed without any limitations. The Pune Porsche Case is an example of such an outcome of the excessiveness of such parenting. Permissive parenting often instils a sense of irresponsibility or lack of moral accountability in the children. If the parents fulfill every desire of their children without adequately refusing to fulfill some of them at times, it often leads the children to think that they can do anything and everything without any potential consequences. This chain of thought further evolves to make the child act impulsively just like in the case of the accused minor in the Pune Porsche Case, who recklessly drove his Porsche car under the influence of alcohol only to end up killing two people on the road.
This also highlights the risk-taking nature of impulsive teenagers who often tend to engage in daredevil activities such as driving a car without supervision or guidance. From a personal point of view, lack of respect or not learning to value prized possessions is one of the greatest and perhaps the most shameful outcomes of yes-parenting. When children are accustomed to getting whatever they wish for or rather whatever they demand, they lose respect for both money and property. They know that their parents have enough resources to provide them with another if they lose or damage the current one, be it expensive cars, mobile phones, or any other valuables. Teaching children about responsibility and accountability can prevent such negative outcomes. It is essential to strike a balance between answering the demands of one’s children and setting appropriate authoritative controls over them because that is the very natural and basic purpose or rather the primary duty of being parents in the first place.
SUGGESTIONS:
Keeping in mind the facts of the case, a few suggestions can be provided for both teenagers and parents. They are as follows:
For Parents: Parents should refrain from providing their children with anything and everything just because they have the economic capacity to fulfill their demands. This makes a child lose respect for the value of the property and creates a greedy and carefree attitude. As adolescents, parents should be extremely vigilant about their children’s activities as they tend to be associated with the wrong company and participate in immoral or illegal activities. Saying NO to a child does not make one a bad parent, but instead ensures and effective control to be maintained over the lifestyle of the children.
For Teenagers: Teenagers should understand the importance of regulatory measures imposed upon them by their parents from time to time and avoid committing wrongful activities under peer pressure. They should know their boundaries well and realize the consequences of their actions. Having access to wealth from a very young age corrupts the vulnerable and young mind and creates undesirable temptations. Even if they have access to resources they should spend it wisely and in a calculated and also realize the importance of legal rules and safety protocols.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the paper gives an insight into one of the most popular legal developments in recent times and along with that a comprehensive understanding of the juvenile justice system has been established by the government. Wealthy people often commit the mistake of considering money as their ticket to buy anything, even justice for a fact. The attempts to cover up the crime The Pune Porsche Case also provides us with valuable insights into the evident corruption persisting in the country and how the system that is meant to protect us, itself paves the pathways for the criminals to escape the law. It is a stark reminder of how important parental guidance is for the upbringing of a child and for deciding his or her future course of action. Cultivating a nurturing and structured environment that promotes their children’s well-being, safety, and long-term success is essential as they are their very first teachers in life.
***********************
Name: Arno Dasgupta
College Name: Department of Law Calcutta University