Throughout Nepal’s legal history, juvenile justice has remained a neglected issue. Only after Nepal ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on September 14, 1990, did the concept of justice for children begin. The commitment also led Nepal to introduce the Children’s Act, 2048 (1992). The Act served as the first-ever legislation related to children and their rights. While it was a landmark step for the security of children, it still fell short of our expectations.

The act was weak and outdated with vague provisions and inadequate protections for children who fell into conflict with the law. So, the call for a more comprehensive legal framework grew louder. This demand cultivated an environment for formulating the Act Relating to Children 2018, which strengthened Nepal’s juvenile justice framework. However, despite the advancements, challenges remain as the law fails to bridge the gap between law and practice.

Under the fourth subsection of Provision 43 in the 2018 Act, it is stipulated that “when a juvenile offender reaches the age of eighteen while still serving their sentence, they aren’t to be transferred to an adult prison, but rather to a special facility”. A special facility for those transitioning from juvenile centres to adult prisons was attempted, but it didn’t materialise, likely due to logistical challenges. As a result, juveniles as young as 12 years are housed alongside individuals nearing 30. This practice alone has been overcrowding juvenile facilities. When supported by a weakly enforced law, this system blatantly contradicts the CRC, which prohibits the housing of juvenile convicts with adult convicts.

Earlier this year, in conversation with the director of the Underprivileged Children’s Educational Programme (UCEP)—an organisation advocating for child rights—I discovered that all eight of Nepal’s juvenile detention centres have a combined capacity of just 390. But more than 1,300 delinquents are kept in these facilities, which creates severe overcrowding.

The effects of overcrowded facilities extend beyond logistical challenges. They also leave a harmful mark on the psychological, intellectual and moral development of the juveniles. Undoubtedly, an individual’s growth is heavily influenced by their surroundings. The young mind is malleable, and when put in an environment far from conducive, the chances of them adopting harmful behaviours are sky-high.

The recent incidents in Nepal’s juvenile centres highlight a serious dysfunction. For instance, this July, the Jayandu Juvenile Correction Centre in Banke saw a violent delinquent-led outburst, marking a third such incident of its kind in just 12 months. These clashes, which resulted in deaths and numerous injuries, accentuate the need to address the systemic flaws in our judicial system. However, when discussing the issue, it is equally crucial to note that the roots of these problems don’t just lie in our flawed legal system. They are deeply connected with the socioeconomic realities of incarcerated children.

From my interview with the UCEP, I found that 95 percent of these young delinquents come from struggling, impoverished families. These are children who have never known a life beyond their huts and farming; children who aren’t familiar with financial peace; children who battle to survive each day; children who commit crimes, unaware that it makes them criminals. This is a situation born out of legal illiteracy. 

The level of legal literacy among the youth in urban centres like Kathmandu itself is weak and the concept is practically foreign in the villages. As a student, I believe that a good part of this shortcoming is a direct reflection of the weakness of our education system. While the government-issued school-level curriculum includes topics related to the constitution and the legal system, the content merely scratches the surface. The coursebooks enlist laws, yet they fail to inform about the consequences of breaking them. Our curriculum omits crucial details about the legal process, like the trial system, juvenile detention centres and what follows the commission of a crime. This superficial approach leaves students with minimal knowledge on our rights and responsibilities, making us vulnerable to unintentional infractions.

However, it would be unfair to place the entire blame on the curriculum alone, as society, too, plays a big role in this issue. With limited public discourse on legal rights, provisions and consequences, our society is failing the youth. I’ve witnessed that society often consumes itself with discussions on matters unrelated to our immediate concerns. They fail to devote time and attention to educating the young about the legal system governing them. If we allocate even a fraction of our focus to legal education, especially for the youths, the next generation will be safe from falling into conflict with the law.

Ultimately, this failure to provide comprehensive legal education, by both the curriculum and civil society, leaves us with only a shallow understanding of our rights and responsibilities as citizens. This lack of awareness makes us highly vulnerable within the justice system, where ignorance invites consequences. So I ask, why should children bear the title of convict if they are unaware that their normality is a federal offence? Why should they pay the price for the weakness of the government-issued curriculum?

It’s about time we shifted our approach. We must establish a society where juveniles can find security in lawmakers and law enforcement officers. Educators must never forget that legal advancements are only effective with proper implementation.