New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday to release a man who spent 25 years in prison for a crime he committed when he was 14 is a reminder of the systemic failures in India’s juvenile justice framework. The individual, who was a minor at the time of the offense, was denied the protections guaranteed under juvenile justice laws, and courts at all levels consistently failed to recognize his status as a juvenile. Recognizing the “gross injustice” caused, the top court not only ordered their immediate release but also directed the Uttarakhand government and the State Legal Services Authority to facilitate their rehabilitation and reintegration.
The judgment delivered by a bench of Justices MM Sundaresh and Arvind Kumar reflected the role of the judiciary as a protector of juvenile rights, emphasizing that courts must go beyond procedural formalities to uncover the truth. This has far-reaching implications not only for the specific case, but also for the broader understanding and application of juvenile justice in India. Addressing systemic oversights, it reiterated the fundamental principles of child protection and welfare enshrined in the Constitution.
justice beyond punishment
Juvenile justice in India is based on the principle that children should be treated not as adults but as individuals worthy of special protection and care because their deviant behavior is often the result of circumstances rather than intention. The top court in its judgment said that the involvement of a child in a crime should be understood as a social failure rather than solely the fault of the child.
Writing the judgement, Justice Sundaresh underlined that children in conflict with the law are “heirs of crime”, victims of circumstances such as poverty, lack of education or adverse social environment. “One should not ignore the fact that the child is not responsible for a crime but is a victim of it. Such a child is nothing but the heir of crime, a legacy which he does not wish to assimilate,” the bench said.
This approach is strongly rooted in the Indian Constitution, which has provisions such as Article 15(3), which allows the state to make special laws for children, and Articles 39(e) and (f), which protect them against exploitation. Call for protection and abandonment. According to the court, these constitutional principles, coupled with international commitments under treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, form the basis of India’s juvenile justice framework.
The judgment also drew attention to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which reiterates the rehabilitative intent of juvenile justice. The law provides for age determination inquiries to enable courts to ascertain whether a person was a juvenile at the time of an offence, and mandates that such protections apply even in pending or adjudicated cases. it occurs. It said this retrospective application underlines the State’s obligation to give priority to the rights of the child over procedural limitations.
It is the duty of the courts to bring out the truth
The judgment highlighted the fundamental duty of the judiciary to seek truth and deliver justice. In the present case, the failure of the judiciary to recognize the juvenility of the appellant at various stages of the litigation during the last 23 years was described as a “consistent and sad” oversight. principle of actus curiae nomen gravabit – that no one would be harmed because of the court’s error – was applied, with the court acknowledging that the appellant’s prolonged imprisonment was a direct result of judicial error. The bench said that even after dismissing appeals and other legal remedies, constitutional courts retain the duty to examine pleas of juvenility when raised, ensuring that substantive justice is not sacrificed at the altar of procedural finality. Is.
This perspective is consistent with earlier judicial pronouncements. In the case Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that courts should take a proactive approach in cases involving juveniles, emphasizing that justice should not be denied due to procedural flaws. In Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajkul Vamasathu Madalaya Nandavan Paripalanai Sangam (2012), the Supreme Court reiterated that “the entire journey of a judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties.”
Development of Juvenile Justice in India
The judgment cited the historical and legal evolution of juvenile justice laws in India, stating that it reflected the progressive realization of the need to treat children differently from adults in the justice system. The first comprehensive legislation, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, sought to establish a uniform framework to address juvenile delinquency. It was later replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which expanded the scope of protection for children and emphasized rehabilitation rather than punishment.
It highlighted that the existing law, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, introduced further reforms, classifying offenses based on their severity and mandating special procedures for juveniles in conflict with the law. Importantly, the 2015 Act allows juvenility to be determined even after the conclusion of a trial or appeal, ensuring that a child’s rights are not terminated due to delays or errors in the judicial process. This law is not only procedural but also substantive, requiring courts to adopt a child-centric approach in interpreting its provisions.
In this context, the Supreme Court emphasized the rehabilitative aspects of the juvenile justice laws and directed the State to facilitate the reintegration of the appellant into society. The decision reinforced the principle that justice for juveniles extends beyond legal measures to social and psychological support.
Systemic failures and the role of constitutional courts
The verdict highlighted serious systemic failures in India’s juvenile justice system, while also emphasizing the need for greater awareness and sensitivity among judges and law enforcement agencies. The court held that these failures violated the protective provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates special consideration for children in conflict with the law.
Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 allows the plea of juvenile at any stage of the proceedings even after the final disposal of a case. The judgment clarified that failure to take a proper decision on a juvenile petition prevents a case from attaining legal finality.
“Even assuming that the plea of juvenility was raised but was not thereafter properly considered at the time of disposal of the special leave petition/statutory criminal appeal, review petition, or curative petition, it would be open to a competent court to decide the said issue. But it will not stop him from taking decisions. By following due procedure,” the bench said.
In the case Abuzar Hussain v. State of West Bengal (2012), the apex court had held that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, and courts must carefully examine all the relevant materials before rendering a decision.
The judgment also underlined the important role of constitutional courts in ensuring justice, particularly in cases where procedural errors or systemic failures deprive vulnerable persons whose rights may be ignored or violated by lower courts or the administrative machinery. . The bench said that when there is a significant lapse, such as failure to recognize the age of the juvenile during the trial or appeal, it becomes the duty of the constitutional courts to intervene and correct the injustice, even if belatedly.
The court reaffirmed the principle that justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicalities, especially when dealing with laws that prioritize welfare and rehabilitation over retribution. “To do so is not an exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 32, 136 or 226 of the Constitution, but an act in fulfillment of an essential duty assigned to the Courts to give effect to the laudable objective of a social welfare legislation.” This was noted.
Highlighting the duty of the judiciary to protect the rights of juveniles, this judgment contributes to a deeper understanding of the juvenile justice system as a cornerstone of India’s commitment to child welfare and constitutional values. This judgment is not merely a correction of past errors, but a far-sighted affirmation of the underlying principles of juvenile jurisprudence, which should be based on rehabilitation and reintegration as the ultimate goal.
