All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.
Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."
Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.
If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.
The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.
Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?
Correct Answer is (d)
Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.
  • a)
    Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.
  • b)
    Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.
  • c)
    Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.
  • d)
    Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related...
The correct answer is (D) Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.
The author's stand on this amendment can be inferred based on the principle of law mentioned and the information provided in the passage.

Explanation:

- The principle of law states that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country."
- The passage explains that Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 specifically prohibits sentencing a child to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
- The author emphasizes the importance of protecting children and not detaining them in jail or police custody.
- The passage also highlights the Act's focus on rehabilitation and addressing the child's and family's needs rather than solely seeking punishment.

Based on these points, the author's stance can be inferred as opposing the amendment that allows for life imprisonment and death penalty for children in conflict with the law, as it goes against the Constitutional value of non-retribution and the objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The demand for speedy retributive justice in the recent heinous crime done against a veterinarian has brought into light the question of extra-constitutional killings. The public sentiments, political demand of public lynching of rapists inter-alia have raised the debate whether a democratic country should follow the constitutional norms and adhere to the due process of law or shall it adopt the measures of retributive justice to bring instant and speedy justice to the victim.Retributive justice is a system of criminal justice based on thepunishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation where as in REFORMATIVE THEORY the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal, through the method of individualization. It is based on the humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being.From protests on the ground, to the commentary on social media, to MPs in Parliament, the demand for the instant killing of the accused from all corners created the public opinion for theabandonment of the rule of lawthat appears to have led to the incident.Justice in any civilised society is not just about retribution, but also about deterrence, and in less serious crimes,rehabilitationof the offenders.There is a procedure prescribed by the law for criminal investigation which is embedded in constitutional principles.Article21of the Constitution (which is fundamental and non-derogabl e) states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.Also in theSalwa Judum case in 2011a core constitutional precept was set out that in modern constitutionalism no wielder of power can be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate state’s violence against anyone. This is also the touchstone of the constitutionally prescribed rule of law(Article 14).Hence,it is the responsibility of the police, being the officers of government, to follow the Constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Lifeof every individual whether an innocent one or a criminal.According toDr. B.R. Ambedkar,the pathways of justice are not linear nor without obstacles. But we have, as a people, chosen the route of democracy and the Constitution, so we really have no option but to school ourselves in constitutional morality that with time must replace public moralityQ.As per author what is reformative theory?

The demand for speedy retributive justice in the recent heinous crime done against a veterinarian has brought into light the question of extra-constitutional killings. The public sentiments, political demand of public lynching of rapists inter-alia have raised the debate whether a democratic country should follow the constitutional norms and adhere to the due process of law or shall it adopt the measures of retributive justice to bring instant and speedy justice to the victim.Retributive justice is a system of criminal justice based on thepunishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation where as in REFORMATIVE THEORY the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal, through the method of individualization. It is based on the humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being.From protests on the ground, to the commentary on social media, to MPs in Parliament, the demand for the instant killing of the accused from all corners created the public opinion for theabandonment of the rule of lawthat appears to have led to the incident.Justice in any civilised society is not just about retribution, but also about deterrence, and in less serious crimes,rehabilitationof the offenders.There is a procedure prescribed by the law for criminal investigation which is embedded in constitutional principles.Article21of the Constitution (which is fundamental and non-derogabl e) states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.Also in theSalwa Judum case in 2011a core constitutional precept was set out that in modern constitutionalism no wielder of power can be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate state’s violence against anyone. This is also the touchstone of the constitutionally prescribed rule of law(Article 14).Hence,it is the responsibility of the police, being the officers of government, to follow the Constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Lifeof every individual whether an innocent one or a criminal.According toDr. B.R. Ambedkar,the pathways of justice are not linear nor without obstacles. But we have, as a people, chosen the route of democracy and the Constitution, so we really have no option but to school ourselves in constitutional morality that with time must replace public moralityQ.As per author retributive justice could be done in following circumstances

The demand for speedy retributive justice in the recent heinous crime done against a veterinarian has brought into light the question of extra-constitutional killings. The public sentiments, political demand of public lynching of rapists inter-alia have raised the debate whether a democratic country should follow the constitutional norms and adhere to the due process of law or shall it adopt the measures of retributive justice to bring instant and speedy justice to the victim.Retributive justice is a system of criminal justice based on thepunishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation where as in REFORMATIVE THEORY the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal, through the method of individualization. It is based on the humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being.From protests on the ground, to the commentary on social media, to MPs in Parliament, the demand for the instant killing of the accused from all corners created the public opinion for theabandonment of the rule of lawthat appears to have led to the incident.Justice in any civilised society is not just about retribution, but also about deterrence, and in less serious crimes,rehabilitationof the offenders.There is a procedure prescribed by the law for criminal investigation which is embedded in constitutional principles.Article21of the Constitution (which is fundamental and non-derogabl e) states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.Also in theSalwa Judum case in 2011a core constitutional precept was set out that in modern constitutionalism no wielder of power can be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate state’s violence against anyone. This is also the touchstone of the constitutionally prescribed rule of law(Article 14).Hence,it is the responsibility of the police, being the officers of government, to follow the Constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Lifeof every individual whether an innocent one or a criminal.According toDr. B.R. Ambedkar,the pathways of justice are not linear nor without obstacles. But we have, as a people, chosen the route of democracy and the Constitution, so we really have no option but to school ourselves in constitutional morality that with time must replace public moralityQ.What does the author mean by Retributive Justice?

Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?

The demand for speedy retributive justice in the recent heinous crime done against a veterinarian has brought into light the question of extra-constitutional killings. The public sentiments, political demand of public lynching of rapists inter-alia have raised the debate whether a democratic country should follow the constitutional norms and adhere to the due process of law or shall it adopt the measures of retributive justice to bring instant and speedy justice to the victim.Retributive justice is a system of criminal justice based on thepunishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation where as in REFORMATIVE THEORY the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal, through the method of individualization. It is based on the humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being.From protests on the ground, to the commentary on social media, to MPs in Parliament, the demand for the instant killing of the accused from all corners created the public opinion for theabandonment of the rule of lawthat appears to have led to the incident.Justice in any civilised society is not just about retribution, but also about deterrence, and in less serious crimes,rehabilitationof the offenders.There is a procedure prescribed by the law for criminal investigation which is embedded in constitutional principles.Article21of the Constitution (which is fundamental and non-derogabl e) states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.Also in theSalwa Judum case in 2011a core constitutional precept was set out that in modern constitutionalism no wielder of power can be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate state’s violence against anyone. This is also the touchstone of the constitutionally prescribed rule of law(Article 14).Hence,it is the responsibility of the police, being the officers of government, to follow the Constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Lifeof every individual whether an innocent one or a criminal.According toDr. B.R. Ambedkar,the pathways of justice are not linear nor without obstacles. But we have, as a people, chosen the route of democracy and the Constitution, so we really have no option but to school ourselves in constitutional morality that with time must replace public moralityQ.As per author the extrajudicial killing of those 4 convicts was a form of

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is related to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation. A juvenile in conflict with law, if apprehended, has to be placed immediately under the care of the special juvenile police unit or a designated child welfare officer. The child has to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Supreme Court has made it clear that the police have no right to detain children in conflict with law in a lockup or a jail.Additionally, Section 21 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 says "No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force."Maximum sentence which can be imposed is 3 years not beyond that. Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. And even if, for some reason, bail is not granted, a child cannot be put behind bars. He has to be lodged either in an observation home or in a place of safety. The law is meant to protect children and not detain them in jail or keep them in police custody. The police cannot torture children.If it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained in prison or police lockup, they should ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety.The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all by the police. The concept of justice is limited in itself, and does not address the needs of the child and family. Several times, the victims have an emotional turmoil around the court system itself. It aims to address what the child victim really needs and could even be after the criminal justice system.Q. If it is declared that retribution has no Constitutional value in the country. Simultaneously, Section 21 has been amended making way for the life imprisonment and death penalty. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this amendment?Correct Answer is (d) Principle of law says that "retribution has no Constitutional value in the country." Section 21 is attracted when someone is sentenced to death or for life imprisonment. Herein retribution has been outlawed by the constitution therefore, only option (d) reflects the balanced reasoning and aligns with the given principle of law.Incorrect Answers None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above and principle of law given.a)Author would welcome the amendment as it seeks to augment the deterrent effect in the society.b)Author would welcome the amendment as it will make the environment conducive for a crime free society wherein no criminals are spared.c)Author would oppose the amendment as it will have detrimental impact on the norms of juvenile protection and their security.d)Author would oppose the amendment as it violates the Constitutional value of non-retribution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup