Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.9(2) – Plea of juvenility – Appellant charged for the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder, for incident occurred in 1994 – On recording of statements in 2001, the appellant stated his age as 20 years – After conviction, the appellant raised the plea of juvenility during the hearing on sentence that he was around 17 years at the time of occurrence – Trial court, relying upon his statement regarding the bank account, presumed that he was major and sentenced him to death – Upheld by the High Court as also Supreme Court – Review Petition thereagainst also dismissed – Mercy Petition before the Governor also rejected – Thereafter, Writ Petition u/Art.32 as also Curative Petition dismissed – Mercy Petition filed before Hon’ble the President of India – During the pendency, 2007 Rules came into effect – Ossification test done and the Medical Age Certificate indicated that the appellant was aged around 14 years at the time of the occurrence – By Presidential Order, death sentence of the appellant commuted to life imprisonment, with caveat that he shall not be released until the attainment of 60 years of age – Subsequent Curative Petition rejected – Appellant then filed Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the Presidential Order and also for seeking relief u/s.9(2) – Writ Petition dismissed holding that the power of judicial review over an executive order passed in exercise of Art. 72 is limited, and the proceedings against the appellant had attained finality – Challenge to: Held: No dispute that the appellant was only 14 years old at the time of the commission of the offence – At every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the Courts, either by ignoring the documents or by casting a furtive glance – Appellant, despite being illiterate, raised this plea one way or another, right from the trial court up to the conclusion of the Curative Petition before this Court – Approach of the Courts in the earlier round of litigation cannot be sustained in the eye of law – Statement given by the appellant at the time of the hearing on his sentence, also pale into insignificance, as even then he would have been a minor at the time of commission of the offence, under both the 2000 and the 2015 Acts – Procedural mandate contemplated under the 1986 Act not followed by the courts below – Curative petition dismissed without according any reason – Even the then existing State Rules not duly followed – When the plea of juvenility was raised, it should have been dealt with under the existing laws at the relevant point of time, especially when there exists a tacit and clear admission as to the age of the appellant – This Court could have dealt with the writ petition filed u/Art.32, as it raised independent prayer for the enforcement of a right conferred under a social welfare legislation – In the subsequent writ petition filed before the High Court, two different prayer made, the determination of the appellant’s plea of juvenility and consequent release, or alternatively judicial review of the decision of the President or the Governor and consequent release – Executive cannot be construed to have undertaken an adjudication on the determination of the age of the accused and first prayer being a distinct one invoking s.9(2), the High Court erred in its reasoning – Appellant has been suffering due to the error committed by the Courts – His conduct in the prison is normal, with no adverse report – He lost an opportunity to reintegrate into the society – Time which he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored – Thus, the sentence imposed in excess of the upper limit prescribed under the relevant Act set aside, while maintaining the conviction rendered – It is not a review of the Presidential Order, but a case of giving the benefit of the provisions of the 2015 Act – State Legal Services Authority to identify welfare scheme of the State/Central Government, facilitating the appellant’s rehabilitation and smooth reintegration into the society upon his release, with emphasis on his right to livelihood, shelter and sustenance guaranteed u/Art.21. [Paras 44-54]
Justice delivery system – Concept of truth – Duty of Court – Explanation:
Held: Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth, which transcends every other action – Primary duty of the Court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts – Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools – When procedural law stands in the way of the truth, the Court must find a way to circumvent it – When substantive law does not facilitate the emergence of the truth, it is the paramount duty of the Court to interpret the law in light of its teleos – Such exercise warranted in a higher degree, while considering a social welfare legislation – Court must discern the truth, primarily from the material available on record in the form of pleadings, and arguments duly supported by documents – Entire judicial system meant for the discovery of the truth, it being the soul of a decision – Presiding Officer expected to play an active role, rather than a passive one. [Paras 4-6]
Juvenility – Juvenile justice – Rights of juvenile – Role of juvenile courts and Constitutional Courts:
Held: Deviant behaviour of a child in conflict with law should be a concern of the society as a whole – Child not responsible for an act of crime, but rather victimized by it – Behaviour of a child can be attributed to environment, the child grows in, and genetics – Remedial measures may be employed for the benefit of the child since the child does not choose the environment in which it grows, deviant behaviour which is a result of exposure to a given environment is evidence of rampant inequality – Thus, a child who lives in a discriminatory environment, requires equitable treatment on the touchstone of Arts. 14, 15(3) rw Art. 39 (e) and (f), Arts. 45 and 47 – Court expected to play the role of parens patriae by treating a child not as a delinquent, but as a victim, viewed through the lens of reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration into the society – Juvenile Court is a species of a parent – Delinquent, who appears before the Court, is to be protected and re-educated, rather than be judged and punished – Court to press into service the benevolent provisions for rehabilitation introduced by the Legislature – Juvenile Court assumes the role of an institution rendering psychological services – Juvenile Court must don the robes of a correction home for a deviant child – Furthermore, since the need for taking care of a juvenile in conflict with law is mandated by the Constitution, the role of the constitutional Courts is significant – Even after the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition/Statutory Criminal Appeal followed by incidental proceedings before Supreme Court, where the plea of juvenility was not consciously considered, there would be no bar on the constitutional Courts to consciously take a deeper look – It is not an exercise of the powers conferred u/Arts 32, 136 or 226, but an act in fulfilment of a mandated duty enjoined upon the Courts, to give effect to the laudable objective of a social welfare legislation – Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 14, 15(3), 39(e), 39(f), 45, 47. [Paras 8-11, 23] Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 – s.9(2) – Special homes – Plea of juvenility vis-à-vis final disposal – Words “even after the final disposal of the case” in s.9(2) – Significance:
Held: s. 9(2) being the heart and soul of the entire Act, must be given its fullest meaning and interpretation – If the offence is committed by a child, it cannot be treated otherwise than as provided under the 2015 Act – After finding out the truth, necessary consequences must follow – Sufficient opportunities must be given to the child in conflict with law to get the benefit of the 2015 Act – Merely because a casual adjudication has taken place does not mean that a plea of juvenility cannot be raised subsequently – So long as the right of a party subsists, one can never say that finality has been attained – In a case where a plea has been raised, but not adjudicated upon, the decision rendered thereunder would not amount to attaining finality – In a case where the plea was not treated as an application u/s.9(2) and, the procedure mandated thereunder was not followed, the principle stated would apply as right of raising the plea of juvenility has not ceased and, thus, subsists. [Paras 21-22]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12, 12(3) – Procedure to be followed in determination of age – Hierarchy of documents:
Held: While there is no difficulty in the application of the principal Act inclusive of the procedural part, even for a juvenile in conflict with law who has attained majority on or after 2001, r.12 must be applied retrospectively even to those cases, especially where no exercise was undertaken under any of the State Rules or the erstwhile Acts, on earlier occasions – Sub-rule (3) of r.12 is a rule of evidence, which merely provides a hierarchy of documents in the order of priority, to be taken note of and considered while determining the age of a juvenile in conflict with law, in an ongoing inquiry – Where a matriculation certificate is very much available, a date of birth certificate from the school or a birth certificate given by a local authority shall never be looked into – Only if none of the said documents is available, can one go for a medical opinion – It should not be misunderstood that even in those cases where due inquiry was undertaken under the erstwhile enactments and the relevant rules, one can seek a fresh inquiry u/r.12. [Paras 24-25] Juvenility – Juvenility as an admitted fact – Rules of Evidence: Held: Admission is a rule of evidence, it is a relevant fact – It becomes relevant qua a fact in issue – When an admission is clear, unambiguous, continuous and unequivocal, it becomes the best form of evidence, and transforms itself into fact in issue – When a party makes an admission, either by way of oral statement or acknowledging a document authored by them, the Court must proceed on that basis – Resultant relief, which is axiomatic, cannot be denied on anvil of procedural law – Any contra view would result in grave injustice – On an issue where there is no dispute, denying a rightful relief would be an affront to fair play and justice – However, the Court cannot construe a statement as an admission and proceed on that basis – There is a subtle difference between an unequivocal admission as against a statement which could be construed to be so – Former can be the basis for a relief, latter meant for adjudication vis-a-vis the facts of the case. [Para 27] Maxim – Actus curiae neminem gravabit – Meaning: Held: No one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court – Mistake committed by the Court cannot stand in the way of one’s rightful benefit – It is not the party which commits a mistake, but rather the Court itself – Such a mistake cannot act as a barrier for the party to get its due relief – However, mistake must be so apparent that it does not brook any adjudication on the foundational facts. [Para 28] Constitution of India – Arts. 72, 161 – Power of the President and the Governor to grant pardon – Presidential order – Judicial review:
Held: Power of pardon u/Art.72 and 161 is sovereign – It is power of compassion and empathy, meant to remove or reduce all pains, penalties and punishment suffered by a convict – Exercise of this sovereign power by either the State or the Centre, is a final grace given under the Constitution for the convict to reintegrate into the society – Power u/Art.72 and 161 is not appellate or revisional in nature, it is an executive power travelling on a different channel – Challenge to the exercise of power u/Arts. 72 and 161 would involve limited judicial review – Courts will have to exercise adequate caution and circumspection while dealing with an executive order passed in exercise of the power conferred u/Arts. 72 or 161 – When challenge is made to executive order, with an independent prayer for exercising the power u/s.9(2), they being distinct and independent, refusal of judicial review of the former will not obliterate the mandatory duty pertaining to the latter. [Paras 29-32]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.