Remember being 16? For many of us, it was a blur of exams, friendships, and figuring ourselves out. But what happens when someone that age commits a serious crime? This tough question is exactly what the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill of 2015 set out to address.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015
A New Chapter for Juvenile Justice: When Does a Child Become an Adult in the Eyes of the Law?
When the Rajya Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015, it signalled a huge shift in India’s approach to crime committed by young offenders.
For the first time, our lawmakers clearly recognised that victims deserve justice just as much as juveniles deserve protection.
This change became essential because:
1.2% of India’s most serious crimes are committed by juveniles
Over 50% of these are sexual offences
Those numbers are enough to make anyone pause—even someone who usually skips statistics like they skip gym on Mondays.
Only if the child is found mature enough to grasp the seriousness of the act will the case shift to adult court.
(Think of it as checking whether someone is truly behaving like a child or only pretending to be one when convenient!)
The Heart of the New Bill: The 16-18 Age Group
Previously, the law saw everyone under 18 uniformly as a child. The new bill introduces a crucial distinction. For "heinous offences" (think serious crimes like murder or rape), the Juvenile Justice Board now has the discretion to try a 16-18 year old as an adult.
But—and this is a very important ‘but’—this isn’t automatic. The Board must conduct a preliminary assessment. They have to answer questions like:
Was the juvenile mentally and physically capable of committing such a crime?
Did they understand the consequences of their actions?
What were the circumstances of the offence?
Only if the Board is convinced, can the trial proceed in a regular court. It’s less about age, and more about capacity and intent.
Not All Black and White: The Crucial "Safety Valve"
Now, before you picture every rebellious teenager being sent to adult jail, let’s be clear. The law has a built-in safety valve.
The system is designed to act as a deterrent for serious crimes, not to punish petty mischief or youthful folly. For less serious offences or crimes committed by younger children, the focus remains firmly on rehabilitation, not retribution. The idea is to guide, correct, and reform young minds who have gone astray, giving them a real chance to turn their lives around with societal support.
The Real Question: Why Are Juvenile Crimes Increasing?
This is where India needs a serious national conversation.
The aim shouldn’t be just to punish wrongdoing. It should be to prevent it, guide children, and give them hope.
Final Thought: A Bill That Looks at Justice and Humanity Together
The Juvenile Justice Bill, 2015 is not just a legal reform—it’s a reminder that India believes in both justice and second chances.
If implemented with sensitivity and responsibility, this law can become a turning point—a moment in history when India decided to protect its children, its victims, and its future with equal commitment.
And who knows? Maybe years later, we’ll look back and say,
“This is where a safer, more compassionate India truly began.”
India’s Intolerance Debate: More Noise Than Reality
Ratan Tata once said that intolerance in India mostly exists in TV studios—and honestly, that might be the most accurate summary ever. The so-called “intolerance debate” appeared loudly during elections and disappeared just as fast after the results. It was as if someone simply switched off the drama lights.
For months, news channels and activists created a dramatic picture of India becoming unsafe. Award ceremonies turned into award-returning ceremonies, and every debate panel looked like a wrestling ring of “experts.” But investigations later showed that many of the highlighted incidents happened in non-BJP states, and some were not connected to communal hate at all. Still, the Modi government took the blame.
A Familiar Pattern During Elections
Whether it was the Delhi or Bihar elections, similar protests popped up with perfect timing. Certain groups projected an image of a fearful, insecure India to influence voters. The goal seemed clear: portray the Modi government as intolerant, create panic among minorities, and shape electoral outcomes.
This strategy wasn’t new, but it became louder thanks to TV debates, social media, and what many call paid media.
Selective Outrage: A National Habit
One of the biggest issues is selective outrage.
Many self-proclaimed secular voices are quick to criticise Hindu groups but fall strangely silent when crimes involve members of other communities.
These same voices defended controversial artworks but supported banning books when it suited them. Their intolerance debate was less about society and more about politics and perception.
A Campaign Against the Government
The rise of a strong central leadership, stricter rules for NGOs, and reduced corruption meant the old power circles felt threatened. The intolerance narrative became a convenient tool to regain relevance and attack the Modi government.
India a country with more religions than most continents being called intolerant? That’s almost comedy.
Media, Celebrities and the Perception Battle
Since day one, the Modi government has struggled against negative perception created by certain media houses. Even celebrities got carried away, Aamir Khan’s statements being a classic example adding fuel to an already exaggerated fire.
Ironically, during the same period, the Chennai floods received far less coverage than the “intolerance crisis.”
As someone joked:
Earlier, journalists risked their lives for a story. Now, stories risk their truth for journalists.
A Stronger India Beyond the Noise
India is, and always has been, a diverse and resilient nation. Crimes must be punished, peace must be protected, and every community must feel safe. But turning stray incidents into “proof” of a collapsing nation helps no one.
By watching the news coming out of the Syrian conflict, it seems Russia’s intervention will not only tilt the balance against Assad’s opposition but may also crush the terror groups that proudly claim the land they rule. For the first time in history, a band of extremists has seized territory and now runs it like a country, openly mocking the civilized world by celebrating barbarism. The rise of these terror outfits across Iraq and Syria would have been impossible without some form of Western tolerance—silent or otherwise.
On paper, the West does not seem to have a sensible Middle East policy. Its covert support for extremist groups to overthrow governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, has been dangerous and destructive. The Syrian crisis began with the 2011 Arab Spring that swept through Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, and eventually Syria. Under the banner of “spreading democracy,” the West involved itself everywhere, even using force when needed to install friendly regimes (as seen in Libya and Egypt). Earlier puppet setups in Iraq and Afghanistan only deepened sectarian divides and fueled support for extremist movements.
After dismantling established governments, the West used another tactic - labeling and dividing terrorists according to convenience. Supporting one group in Syria (like Al-Nusra) while fighting its ally in Iraq (Al-Qaeda) shows the double-standard, which Russia has now exposed. The chaos in Syria is largely a Western attempt to remove Assad and replace him with a government loyal to their interests, much like Iraq. Syria now risks becoming a terror haven worse than Afghanistan in the 1990s. In the last three years, the country has collapsed further, with nearly 250,000 dead and more than a million refugees escaping the war.
In this setting, Russia’s entry is fiercely opposed by the West and its allies. For Russia, Assad is a long-standing partner who provides a strategic foothold in the Middle East, including a crucial naval base. But the intervention is also about something bigger—restoring Russian influence at a time when the country was under Western sanctions, economic strain, and diplomatic isolation after the Crimea annexation and involvement in eastern Ukraine.
Assad now controls barely a quarter of Syrian territory and is steadily losing ground, making Russian involvement almost unavoidable. The terror groups in Syria include ISIS, the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, and other jihadist factions that the West calls “moderate” and supports under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army. With Russian airpower, the Syrian army backed by Hezbollah, Iranian fighters, and other Shia militias is now pushing harder on the ground.
On paper, the West claims to be fighting ISIS while supporting “moderate” rebels, which looks absurd. Even NATO members cannot agree among themselves some support the Kurds, others attack them. With such contradictions, it’s no surprise the coalition has performed poorly against ISIS. The terror group’s continued strength and ability to hold territory have badly damaged whatever Western strategy existed. Russia, meanwhile, does not bother separating one extremist group from another and is focused on restoring its power in the region. If the Shia government in Iraq also turns towards Moscow for protection, Russian influence will grow dramatically.
The truth is that given the way Middle Eastern societies are structured, removing a dictator usually leads to chaos, not peace. It marks the beginning of a very difficult and unstable period. With weak institutions, poor governance, and harsh rulers, the only unifying element becomes religion. When religion fails to work with governance, the situation worsens. Extreme religious sermons, which blame outside civilizations for local problems, create a toxic environment. Young people filled with anger and frustration get sucked into violence, hiding behind distorted religious teachings.
In reality, the entire Middle East is going through a long and painful transition, and the roots of its struggle lie mostly within the region. Terror groups will eventually lose to superior Russian military power, and the fight to eliminate them has already begun in Syria. But the real victory will come only when their poisonous ideology is defeated. Meanwhile, Western nations must stop interfering in the internal matters of sovereign countries. The West’s hypocrisy in promoting “democracy” becomes clear when we recall how the CIA toppled the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954.
As stated by the U.N. declaration of Human Rights in 1948 "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." The above declaration states that each and every human is entitled to certain basic human rights such as right to live, speech, freedom, justice, etc. irrespective of race,religion,color,creed and nationality and these rights are fundamental to human existence thus should be protected.
The sad part about honoring the simple basic rights enshrined in most countries constitution is the different interpretation of human rights and its protection. In some counties political and civil rights are not given or guaranteed to all its citizens or minorities while in some others, economic and social rights are not honored. To ensure promoting & implementation of rules safeguarding human rights international organizations like UN,Amnesty International and International Human Rights Commission(IHRC) were created and entrusted responsibility.
Recent contentious appointment of Saudi Arabia by the UN to head a key human rights panel United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has been deplored by human rights groups Worldwide. The reason being the disgusting human rights record of Saudi government. Saudi Arabia is notorious for worst kind of rights violations,repressive theocracy by discussing the open discrimination against women, public execution for petty crimes and harsh sentencing for government critics is cited as reasons by organizations for Saudi Arabia's omission from human rights panel.
According to the Amnesty, rights activists are labeled as terrorists in Saudi Arabia and their trials continue. The fundamental human rights respected world wide are not adhered to by Saudi regime.The organization adds that Riyadh imprisons people merely for exercising their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. Amnesty has also slammed the Saudi regime for violating international laws through its unilateral aerial war on Yemen that killed hundreds of innocent civilians.
The wife of imprisoned free speech blogger Raif Badawi, Ensaf Haidar, called the appointment “scandalous” and said that it meant “oil trumps human rights”.Saudi Arabia has been accused of human-rights abuses for decades, from suppressing dissent to beheading people for homosexuality,drugs,adultery and minor crimes. Saudi regime is accused of using draconian,medieval era laws to silence dissent in there country.
Ensaf Haidar, wife of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi
With angry human rights organizations calling Saudi appointment preposterous there had been past instances when despite worst human rights violations, China together with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Cuba and Algeria won seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said “It is scandalous that the UN chose a country that has beheaded more people this year than ISIS to be head of a key human rights panel, “Petrodollars and politics have trumped human rights.”
Shia Activist Ali AlNimr
Western governments are always being accused for dubious conduct on penalizing human rights offenders. Saudi Arabia is an important Western ally in an increasingly tumultuous middle eastern region and that implies Saudi Arabia's appointment to coveted UNHRC .
We live in a country where surname is important, its not your achievements but the family you are born decides one's social standing. Caste is a powerful tool of self-identification in Indian society. Caste based discrimination in India is as old as country itself.
India adopted constitution in 1950 and provided "reservations" to the most downtrodden caste groups in social hierarchy for there upliftment and thus imparting social justice and bringing equality. Idea to provide reservations was to bring equality,development and social unity among masses thus concluding that caste consciousness would slowly wither away with time. Reservations which was meant to provide equality and unify society, actually ended up increasing the wedge.
Reservations undoubtedly provided relief to a section of targeted caste groups(beneficiary) but failed to bring social unification or untangling caste web in our society, on the contrary it further complicated things parting wedge further. The problem, as all too often in India, is politics. Caste based politics is a potent tool in the hands of politicians exploited to the hilt. In electoral democracy "reservations" became an election tool in the hands of politicians for population mobilization. With fewer government jobs and dwindling economy nowadays there's a competition among caste groups to be declared backward and get under the ambit of reservation.
Reservation policy was implemented for social,economical,constitutional and political empowerment of lower castes. The irony of reservation quota is, it divided the society even more as the unreserved castes either want the reservations cancelled or to be included in the quota themselves and current beneficiary castes protect their quota percentage and resist inclusion(dilution of quota) of any new castes into their category. With increasing population and lesser jobs, the scuffle to get enrolled through reservations is only going to vitiate social environment . The mad rush to declare there castes socially and economically backward is only going to accentuate further. Gujjars of Rajasthan, Patels of Gujarat, Jats of Haryana and Kapus of Andhra Pradesh are just the beginning with many more castes will unite as vote banks to arm twist government for advancing there cause.
Providing reservations to section of society ( 15 per cent and 7.5 per cent for SCs and STs respectively) was a social experiment for uplifting deprived castes who were allegedly suppressed for generations with equal opportunities and social equality, but the trouble began in 1990, when Parliament passed a law reserving another 27 percent of government jobs for members of "Other Backward Classes". It's important to know the basis for reservation to any caste and the benchmark setup to distinguish are obscure. In the mid-1990s,Rajasthan's Jats community applied for inclusion in backward-classes quota. They cited, among other things, 1931 census data revealed child marriage in their community was more prevalent than among other official backward castes.
Jat Agitation
The primary objective of Indian reservation system was to provide enhanced social,economical and educational opportunities to underprivileged communities but with more affluent communities seeking pie of reservation quota,it actually defeats the objective of classless Indian society. With brain dead politicians at helm,numerical strength of communities and there prowess to unleash terror will be the benchmark for inclusion of specific community in reservation quota in future. The Patel's in Gujarat, Jat's in Haryana are testimony to quota agitation.
Patel Agitation
In present scenario when every caste is in haste to be branded backward and logic is overruled by politics, there's a need to analyze the impact of reservations on our society. We should determine whether the past practices of 65 years (reservations was initially proposed for 10 years) yielded desired results. Some people argue to include economically weaker sections irrespective of caste be granted reservation. One most formidable alteration to reservation quota would be to abolish prevailing reservation on caste and give free and quality education till 12th to all the deprived and poor sections of the society (any caste, creed or religion),full scholarship to meritorious candidates irrespective of caste and religion.
Pakistan a "land of pure" was created by Muslim fanatics headed by Jinnah for subcontinent Muslims. The main objective to carve out an Islamic homeland was to provide safe and secure country for Muslims who were allegedly under threat from Hindu majority. Advancing there case of unifying Muslim majority(dominated) areas in Indian subcontinent , there's always an unending propensity of Pakistani establishment towards Muslim majority Kashmir valley and publicly highlighting annexation of Kashmir as there unfinished partition agenda.
Did Pakistan became a safe heaven for Muslims as envisaged by its creators ? We shall soon have some idea about the "Savior of Muslim" or "Pious land for Muslim" credentials of Pakistan as it vociferously propagates to gullible people around the globe.
Bangladeshi Genocide
The idea of Pakistan was decimated with breakaway and independence of Bangladesh in 1971. Atrocities by Pakistani army on linguistically different Bengali population who were co-religionist eroded and ended the idea of one homeland for subcontinent Muslims. Many academics state that the first time rape was consciously applied as a weapon of war was during the Bangladesh War of Independence. The mass killings in Bangladesh whose figures varies between 2 to 3 million was the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century by Pakistani establishment against Muslims and other minorities in Bangladesh . Rough estimate suggests that the number of the rape victims could be anywhere between 4 and 6 millions. The bifurcation of Pakistan in 1971 on linguistic bases and atrocities on Bangladeshi Muslims by Pakistanis defies the concept of creation of Pakistan on religious basis.
Shia Genocide
Pakistani myth about Muslim homeland lies in tatters as Sunni Muslims attack and butcher Shias with impunity since 1980's . The sectarian violence against fellow Muslim sects is increasing by the day. Antagonism towards Shias by Sunni Muslims motivated numerous target killings and bomb blasts in Pakistan. According to human rights group over 4000 Shias were butchered in Pakistan between 1987-2007. Over 1,900 Shi’a (including Hazara and Ismaili) were killed in bomb blasts or targeted gun attacks from 2012 to May 2015 . Shias that numbered around 20% of Pakistani population are frequently persecuted by Sunnis in Pakistan.
Another Muslim community that's routinely persecuted inside Pakistan are Ahmadiyya Muslims. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community of the sub-continent, which migrated to Pakistan after partition. In 1974 Pakistan's parliament adopted a law declaring Ahmadis to be non-Muslims, they are forbidden to call themselves Muslim or to "pose as Muslims", there religious places are desecrated and are subjected to persecution and systematic oppression. 1953 Lahore riots, 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots and May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in Lahore bare testimony to Anti-Ahmadiyya hatred and persecution in Pakistan.
Such is the hatred towards Ahmadis that theoretical physicist and Nobel Laureate Dr Abdus Salam was shunned and sidelined in Pakistan because he was an Ahmadiyya Muslim.
Sufi Islam which is another stream of Islam that preaches tolerance and peace is now under threat in Pakistan.Sufism’s influence on the literature, music, art and architecture of Islam is also immense thus contradicts the rigorous religion that is enveloping Pakistan today.Sufi festivals on shrines of saints are routinely attacked and desecrated.
While confronting Muslim insurgents in Baluchistan, Sindh, Gilgit etc. Pakistani army are notorious of oppressing Muslim inhabitants of these regions. Balcoh people are persecuted, abducted and systematically killed by Pakistani security agencies and the Pakistani Army. Baloch leaders like Shaheed Nawab Akbar Bugti, was attacked and killed along with his tribesmen in 2006 testifies intolerant Pakistani psyche . The busting myth of Pakistan for Muslims becomes crystal clear with "Operation Cleanup" a brutal state sponsored attack on the Karachi Muhajirs(Urdu speaking Muslim immigrants from India) in the early 1990s, both under Nawaz Sharif (1992) and then Benazir Bhutto (1993-4).
The diabolical Pakistani claims of harbinger of Islam and protector of its followers was at public display in Jordan in September 1970. Over 25,000 Palestinians were massacred by Pakistani 2nd Division in September 1970 under Brigadier Ziaul Haq who later ruled Pakistan. So much for the Palestinian and Muslim cause that Pakistan profess and propagates thus seek support of International community to usurp Kashmir after getting decimated in all the wars she initiated against India.
Pakistan is at war with itself and countless insurgent groups, it doesn't have the moral or religious authority to question Kashmir unification with rest of India. The intolerant,violent Pakistani society is ruined and is on brink of civil war. She shouldn't be taken seriously as there is no merit in continuing dialogue with a failed state that doesn't recognize international treaties of past and should be left to fend of for herself.
