Answer: The case study pertains to the correctness of the provision of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which gives the Juvenile Justice Board the power to assess whether the perpetrator of a heinous crime aged between 16 and 18, had acted as a ‘child’ or as an ‘adult.’ The board will be assisted in this process by psychologists and social experts.
(a) Possible factors that can drive a child towards committing heinous crimes are following:

• Social: Social factors are undergoing changes due to urbanization, globalization and cultural changes.
  • Family: Broken homes, father’s work habits, cohesiveness of the family, relations between parents, affection of siblings, standards of home, parent’s discipline and affection etc. play a very important role in defining the behaviour of a child.
  • School and peer group relations: After family, the child spends most of its time in the school and with his friends. It can supplement the role of the family in enhancing values.
• Economic factors: In case of India, socio-economic injustice combined with violence and abuse is the major factor in breeding juvenile delinquency. Persistent unemployment and low incomes of families increases the likelihood of children’s involvement in any kind of criminal activities and unethical behaviour.
• Bad cultural influences: Cinema and Television have emerged as strong attractions for children in recent times. Sometimes, their content glorifies anti-social behaviour as heroic and exposes children to all kinds of criminal acts. Children, having an impressionable mind, are ill-equipped to differentiate what is good from bad.
• Individual factors: It includes certain personality traits like feeling of insecurity, fear, lack of self-control, emotional conflict etc.

(b) The debate on whether a child in conflict with law (CCL) should be treated as an adult often remains a contentious issue with both sides having some strong arguments. A CCL should be tried as an adult, because:

• Even though they are treated as juveniles because of their age, they have increasingly been found to be involved in heinous crimes in recent years. For examples, Nirbhaya rape case, Lucknow PubG murder etc.
• It is arbitrary that a person aged 17 years and 364 days will be tried as a juvenile while an 18 year old will be tried as an adult for the same crime.
• It provides a measure of consistency for the severity of the crime and also gives due seriousness to the severity that they deserve.
• It gives a sense of justice to the victims whose fundamental and legal rights have been violated.

Notwithstanding the above arguments, a CCL should not be tried as an adult, because:

• No one is born a criminal. Research has proved that the conditions are provided by the environment in which children are reared that dispose them towards antisocial behaviour.
• It is the duty of the state and society to provide equal opportunities for development of all children during the period of their growth, which would reduce inequality and ensure social justice.
  • Their failure to do so leads to conditions that are associated with juvenile crimes, such as: poverty; drug abuse; anti-social peer group; easy availability of firearms; abusive parents; single-parent child; child sexual abuse; lack of education opportunities etc.
• There are issues in deciding the age at which a person becomes an adult. Boundary between juvenile and adult is no longer as clear, as children appear to grow up faster, with more exposure to adult ideas.
• In law, the concept of ‘guilty mind’ holds an important place where a person should be mentally capable and willing to cause the effect of an illegal act to be blamed for that criminal activity. As children do not understand the gravity of the crime they have committed, it is not right to punish them for those crimes.

Thus, it is not just a problem whose onus can be put on children but reflects the malaise and corruption in the society and systemic limitations of the state. Hence, punishing children stands on a slippery ground ethically. It is important that the focus should be shifted from punitive justice to reformative justice. Moreover, socio-economic justice as promised by the Constitution should be pursued earnestly; else we will only address the symptoms but not the causes.

Answer: The given case study presents similarities to the ongoing crises in the wake of recent issues like political violence, terrorism, ethnic conflicts across countries that causes large scale displacement of people. It was witnessed during Syrian refugees’ exodus to Europe, Rohingya refugee crisis and the recent Afghan refugee crisis. The Global South had to bear the major part of the refugee burden, while the West shrugged off its moral and ethical responsibilities.
(a) In the present case, an influx of refugees is natural. However, there are issues with respect to legality of the same in addition to various moral issues that can be delineated as under: Moral Issues:

• Conflict between national interest and universal humanism: International norms and humanitarian impulse suggest that a country should accept refugees. On the other hand, national interests like security threats, demographic challenges of rehabilitation and resource competition raises key concerns for a country.
• Denial of human rights: Human dignity not being respected by the state even if they are a party to the UN conventions and customary laws as well as refusal to accommodate refugees points towards a global failure of states and the UN agencies to protect those facing potential threats of prosecution.
• Compassion: Forced displacement should not only be viewed only through an economic perspective but from the perspective of humanity.

In addition to the aforementioned moral issues, the present case also presents an unfortunate denial of commitments offered under the international law, in particular relating to humanitarian laws, human rights, genocides, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The UNHRC also identifies rights and guarantees relevant to the protection of persons from forced displacement and to their protection and assistance during displacement.
(b) As a Senior Official entrusted with the mandate to design a national policy to safely accommodate India bound refugees, I would categorize my policy recommendations in the light of their short-term and long-term impact and suggest the following policy recommendations: 1. Short-term measures:

• Temporary refuge: As part of the ongoing crises, I would recommend discussion with adjoining nations and call for efforts to be made to provide for their temporary settlement in adjoining countries. I would recommend countries bearing greater burden of refugees to come together as a regional bloc and influence affluent countries to contribute generously. This way, it would also be easy to repatriate refugees once the conditions normalize.
• Nodal Offices: Since there are issues related to the legality of routes adopted by inbound refugees, many would be under immense duress, I would recommend setting up an integrated asylum agency with nodal offices across neighboring regions to facilitate verification, and resettlement of the refugees in their nearest safe spots. The current system of fragmented border agencies is not only inefficient, expensive and cruel but also non- accountable and works only to pass the responsibility.
• Civil Society: NGOs and private sector could be roped in for humanitarian assistance for ensuring the basic needs like food, water, sanitation etc.

2. Long term measures: I would recommend setting up institutional mechanisms in cooperation with the international agencies to offer greater protection and assistance to people in their own countries so that they do not have to flee in the first place.

• Moral and diplomatic persuasion to stop persecution and promote reconciliation among stakeholders in various countries to avoid migration of people.
• Policy measures at global level: I would recommend stepping up diplomatic efforts to instill a multilateral asylum policy to facilitate equitable sharing of the burden of refugees.
• Policy measures at domestic level: Since there is an absence of a national refugee policy, I would recommend officials to give some serious thought to drafting its own refugee policy based on universal principles of dignity, fraternity and safety.
• Proper Data collection: The lack of reliable data in terms of the exact number of illegal immigrants, especially in India, is also a problem area that needs to be addressed urgently for better preparedness.

Global collective action to prevent violence induced forced migration and holding accountable those who commit them will be a crucial step in making the global system of refugee protection more adequate. Similarly, taking positive steps to come to the aid of those who have been driven from home will be essential to a more effective refugee regime.

Answer: The above case study represents the classic case of means (unethical) vs ends (winning) ethical dilemma. Use of performance enhancing drugs makes a mockery of a competition as well as the international reputation of India is at stake.   (a) In such a scenario, it would be my moral obligation to follow the spirit of the game and stick to the ethical value system imbibed in me. Options available in such a scenario are:
Option-1: Warn the athletes/coach against using such drugs in the future. Merits:

• Give a choice to the fellow athletes to refrain from taking drugs in future.
• Resolution of the issue at the team-level.

Demerits:

• Warning may not be taken seriously.
• Coach may punish me on disciplinary grounds to silence silen me.
• Doping may get detected if they participate in the competition.
• Unfair competition.

Option-2: Complaint directly to the higher authorities accompanying the contingent Merits:

• Fair competition as it would prevent those candidates from entering into the competition.
• Establish your credential as a fair player.

Demerits:

• No chance for the athletes/coach to explain their actions.
• It would come into the media, which will impact the image of the nation and sports fraternity as a whole.
• Higher officials may also be involved along with the coach.

Option-3: Complaint after the competition is over Merits:

• Performance of the team will not be affected in the competition.
• Provides ample time for assessment of my options.

Demerits:

• Athletes/coaches may deny the wrongdoings.
• Non-resolution of my fear and conscience crisis during the competition.
• Doping may get detected, which will tarnish India’s image globally.

My final course of action would be guided by my belief in Gandhian ethics i.e., “Be the change you wish to see in the world”.

• Firstly, I’d try to clear a few doubts by obtaining first-hand information i.e., whether the drug being used is banned or not as well as affirming the role of the coach and other members in it.
• Then, I would try to persuade the fellow athletes to stop the drug’s use, as it is illegal and goes against sports ethics. I would try to convince them that it can be detrimental to both their career as well as the country’s image.
• In case they disagree, I would reach out to the coach and warn him of possible complaints against the ongoing malpractices.
• If the coach ignores my warning, I would be left with no choice but to write a written complaint mentioning the use of illegal drugs to Team Managers & Sports Authority of India officials accompanying the contingent, National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) and also to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.

(b) Reasons for common use of unfair means in sports:

• Individual factors: Desire for winning, improvement, pain management, recovery, career longevity and economic gains. Also, cut throat competition sometimes motivates a player to resort to such unethical activities.
• Legal factors: Weak implementation of anti-doping laws/rules by domestic sports bodies and lack of awareness about the rules.
• Systemic factors: Historical prevalence of doping in sports, weak anti-doping infrastructure, inadequate sport governance systems, organized systematic doping in some countries, biased role of coach etc.

Steps to minimize this practice:

• Preventive steps:
  • Spread awareness regarding side effects and related punishments for doping violations, especially at the grassroots level.
  • Simplify rules, laws and list of prohibited substances.
  • Improve drug testing technology and increased reliance on investigation.
• Punitive steps:
  • Strict enforcement of anti-doping laws at domestic levels. E.g. strict testing policy with random but frequent tests of athletes.
  • Ban countries accused of covering up anti-doping violations. Also, banishment of coaches involved in it.
• Promotive steps:
  • Advocating best practices and encouraging countries to adopt them.
  • Factor in ethical conduct and doping rankings in funding mechanisms.
• Other steps:
  • Therapeutic Use Exemption (TEU) certificate to protect those athletes who have a genuine medical condition with no alternative drugs/treatment.
  • Universalize the application of athletes’ ‘biological passporť.

To enjoy the fruits of success, it is not enough to win. Triumph must be measured by absolute fair means, honesty and just play. Without fairness and trustworthiness, the established order of our society is at risk.