Opinion - News Analysis   

Protecting the child from stigma

K. Narayanan

Children's Day (November 14) is an occasion for me to return to the topic of juveniles and the media, and re-emphasise the need for a sustained campaign to spread awareness of the rights of the child and the laws and conventions relating to it. In the column on April 17, 2006 ("The child, the media and the law"), I had pointed out that while the relevant judgments, laws, conventions and guidelines were specific, there was inadequate understanding of these among the public, and journalists in particular.

Since that was written, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill was passed by Parliament in August 2006, enlarging the definition of juveniles to include victims in addition to offenders and increasing the penalty for violation by the media from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 25,000.

Under the Act, a "juvenile in conflict with law" means anyone who is alleged to have committed an offence, and had not completed 18 when that took place. When a claim of juvenility is raised in court — it can be at any stage, also after final disposal of the case — the court shall determine the claim, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the commencement of the Act. If the court determines the person to be a juvenile, it shall forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for orders and the sentence if any passed by a court will have no effect.

The Act provides that "No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or visual media of any enquiry regarding a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection (emphasis added) under this Act shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the juvenile or child nor shall any picture of such a juvenile or child be published." Provision is made for the inquiring authority permitting such disclosure "if it is in the interest of the juvenile or child." The penalty for contravening this provision can extend to Rs. 25,000.

In my earlier column, I mentioned that I had not come across any legal action for such violations. It has now happened and I was informed of it by Disha, Centre for Social Justice and Child Rights Protection Forum (CRPF), Hyderabad (disha_justice@yahoo.co.in).

CRPF moved the court against the television channel ETV2 for telecasting a 30-minute feature on June 27, 2006 on the killing of a person, allegedly by his 15-year-old wife on May 20, 2006. Immediately after the event, newspapers and TV channels routinely reported it, and CRPF wrote to them, requesting them to respect the JJ Act and not violate it. When the TV feature was announced, it requested ETV not to disclose details of the girl. The request was ignored and CRPF moved the court.

M.A. Vanaja and P. Pavan of CRPF say the case was settled fast — it was filed on June 28, 2006 and judgment was pronounced on September 7, 2006, by J. Srilakshmi, V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

The Senior Copy Editor, News Today Private Ltd., submitted to the court that the programme "Neralu Ghoralu" was meant to inform and educate the public on crimes committed in society, that the episode "Naaki Pelloddu" was based on facts obtained from police records and relatives and there was no exaggeration, and that care was taken not to show a photo or particulars of the juvenile. He regretted that the names of the parents were mentioned and requested that the lapse be condoned.

The Magistrate observed that the juvenile's right to privacy and confidentiality had to be protected through all stages of the proceedings under the JJ Act. The TV programme not only mentioned the girl's name, but also gave full details of her identity. The word "disclosed" in the Act did not mean disclosure for the first time. There was no merit in the argument that the details were in the public domain. To attract the penal consequences, mens rea (criminal intent) is not required. The details in the programme would lead to the juvenile's identification, resulting in her segregation and isolation, and expose her to the stigma from which she needed to be protected. A fine of Rs. 1000 was imposed (the case was filed before the Act was amended, raising the penalty to Rs. 25000).

On October 17, 2006, The Guardian of London had a pointer on Page 1, and a detailed report on page 4, of a 15-year-old boy being convicted for the murder of an 11-year-old boy. The inside report described the way the crime was committed. The Code of the U.K. Press Complaints Council, which is legally binding on newspapers, bars the identification of victims and witnesses, who are below 16, in cases of sexual offences. Are offenders excluded, I asked Ian Mayes, Readers' Editor of The Guardian. In response, the journalist who covered the story said that under the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act, there were restrictions on naming the offender. But the trial judge lifted the restrictions after the accused pleaded guilty to the murder and the defence barrister had no objection. So for the first time since the boy was charged in March, he was named in the October 16 report.

The statement last week that The Hindu receives more than a thousand pictures a day was wide of the mark. The figure is 4000 to 5000 a day, less on Sundays, says D. Krishnan, Photo Editor.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Economics of climate change
Ortega's return
Rescue nuclear disarmament from backburner
Protecting the child from stigma
Will the U.S. be easier to share the planet with?
Protect forests to soak up emissions
Gruesome incident
Welcome
Who decides?

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu