We shall have to rewrite our rule-book to suite our current needs. MOST Rules written more than 6 decades back have lost their value, especially as lawmakers are not sticking to rules themselves. We need straight forward rules without involving judiciary in complicated by-laws. That only provides benefits to mediators.

"Rule Book"? Do you mean to say the constitution of India? If that's that, then I think there have been a lot of amendments to it. And this one is going to be the most revolutionary - changing the juvenile age from 18 to 16.

We shall have to rewrite our rule-book to suite our current needs. MOST Rules written more than 6 decades back have lost their value, especially as lawmakers are not sticking to rules themselves. We need straight forward rules without involving judiciary in complicated by-laws. That only provides benefits to mediators.

"Rule Book"? Do you mean to say the constitution of India? If that's that, then I think there have been a lot of amendments to it. And this one is going to be the most revolutionary - changing the juvenile age from 18 to 16.

Constitution is the main document on which are law are based. Constitution has also been amended many times. Law can always be rewritten. Since independence many new acts have been passed and old acts repealed. As regards changing juvenile age, there has always to be some age. Now you say reduce this to sixteen. supposing that some one sixteen years old does some offence, you will say reduce this to fifteen- then to fourteen and so on. I wonder where this will lead to.

We shall have to rewrite our rule-book to suite our current needs. MOST Rules written more than 6 decades back have lost their value, especially as lawmakers are not sticking to rules themselves. We need straight forward rules without involving judiciary in complicated by-laws. That only provides benefits to mediators.

"Rule Book"? Do you mean to say the constitution of India? If that's that, then I think there have been a lot of amendments to it. And this one is going to be the most revolutionary - changing the juvenile age from 18 to 16.

Constitution is the main document on which are law are based. Constitution has also been amended many times. Law can always be rewritten. Since independence many new acts have been passed and old acts repealed. As regards changing juvenile age, there has always to be some age. Now you say reduce this to sixteen. supposing that some one sixteen years old does some offence, you will say reduce this to fifteen- then to fourteen and so on. I wonder where this will lead to.

We shall have to rewrite our rule-book to suite our current needs. MOST Rules written more than 6 decades back have lost their value, especially as lawmakers are not sticking to rules themselves. We need straight forward rules without involving judiciary in complicated by-laws. That only provides benefits to mediators.

"Rule Book"? Do you mean to say the constitution of India? If that's that, then I think there have been a lot of amendments to it. And this one is going to be the most revolutionary - changing the juvenile age from 18 to 16.

Yes that's right, we need a new rule book. Amendments make things only complicated. A clear set of rules, no bylaws.

We shall have to rewrite our rule-book to suite our current needs. MOST Rules written more than 6 decades back have lost their value, especially as lawmakers are not sticking to rules themselves. We need straight forward rules without involving judiciary in complicated by-laws. That only provides benefits to mediators.

"Rule Book"? Do you mean to say the constitution of India? If that's that, then I think there have been a lot of amendments to it. And this one is going to be the most revolutionary - changing the juvenile age from 18 to 16.

Yes that's right, we need a new rule book. Amendments make things only complicated. A clear set of rules, no bylaws.

Our constitution can be amended any nymber of times and it is necessary to do so from time to time - dont they do it in one sitting when it is a question of increasing perks for ministers and MPs? Similarly laws are made not for the government but for the people and they need to be modified depending on thecurrent situation within our society ..

We shall have to rewrite our rule-book to suite our current needs. MOST Rules written more than 6 decades back have lost their value, especially as lawmakers are not sticking to rules themselves. We need straight forward rules without involving judiciary in complicated by-laws. That only provides benefits to mediators.

"Rule Book"? Do you mean to say the constitution of India? If that's that, then I think there have been a lot of amendments to it. And this one is going to be the most revolutionary - changing the juvenile age from 18 to 16.

Yes that's right, we need a new rule book. Amendments make things only complicated. A clear set of rules, no bylaws.

Our constitution can be amended any nymber of times and it is necessary to do so from time to time - dont they do it in one sitting when it is a question of increasing perks for ministers and MPs? Similarly laws are made not for the government but for the people and they need to be modified depending on thecurrent situation within our society ..

We shall have to rewrite our rule-book to suite our current needs. MOST Rules written more than 6 decades back have lost their value, especially as lawmakers are not sticking to rules themselves. We need straight forward rules without involving judiciary in complicated by-laws. That only provides benefits to mediators.

"Rule Book"? Do you mean to say the constitution of India? If that's that, then I think there have been a lot of amendments to it. And this one is going to be the most revolutionary - changing the juvenile age from 18 to 16.

Yes that's right, we need a new rule book. Amendments make things only complicated. A clear set of rules, no bylaws.

Our constitution can be amended any nymber of times and it is necessary to do so from time to time - dont they do it in one sitting when it is a question of increasing perks for ministers and MPs? Similarly laws are made not for the government but for the people and they need to be modified depending on thecurrent situation within our society ..

As they get new experience, the amendments are done. It depends on what the situation is for them to do so. Newer things take place which weren't either thought of earlier or need a mention in the amendment. And yes, it never happens in one sitting as you pointed out. Its' a lengthy process.

We shall have to rewrite our rule-book to suite our current needs. MOST Rules written more than 6 decades back have lost their value, especially as lawmakers are not sticking to rules themselves. We need straight forward rules without involving judiciary in complicated by-laws. That only provides benefits to mediators.

"Rule Book"? Do you mean to say the constitution of India? If that's that, then I think there have been a lot of amendments to it. And this one is going to be the most revolutionary - changing the juvenile age from 18 to 16.

Yes that's right, we need a new rule book. Amendments make things only complicated. A clear set of rules, no bylaws.

Our constitution can be amended any nymber of times and it is necessary to do so from time to time - dont they do it in one sitting when it is a question of increasing perks for ministers and MPs? Similarly laws are made not for the government but for the people and they need to be modified depending on thecurrent situation within our society ..

At last the government of India is thinking of bringing in some refoms in the juvenile laws ...The question is will the Nirbhaya rapist and murderer get away because of this delay. In fact, according to reports the so called fast track courts have only caused more delays in the proceedings and something could have been done earlier so that the criminal did not get off so easily..

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Juveniles-involved-in-murder-rape-may-be-tried-as-adults/articleshow/22825155.cms?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral

Probably this case prompted them to make changes in this law. I think with Indian standards they have acted fast enough.

Nirbhaya case has made the law makers and law enforcing authorities sit and think. Now they have woke up to the reality and felt the immediate need to revamp the obsolete acts. Whatever may be the outcome, I'm glad a beginning has been done.

But what we fail to understand is that you always miss a point. There has always to be a margin- be this age or place. Now what they will do. Reduce the age to sixteen years. Then what if one aged 15 years and nine months commits a serious crime. Then you will say reduce the age to fourteen years. Ultimately I don't know where this will lead to. The tendency to take adhoc decisions out of emotional outbursts will definitely create confusion and chaos.

When they make laws they need to have provisions wherein the punishment given depends not on the age but on the gravity of the crime ...Other countries have it so why not us ? otherwise we will be going round in circles ...