The Supreme Court, in this judgment, recognized the failure of the judicial system to address his juvenility claim, a constitutional mandate rooted in the principle of reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration of juveniles.
Case Title: Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das vs. Union of India & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 4229 OF 2024
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar
Date of Judgment: January 8, 2025
Background
The appellant, Om Prakash, was charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder for an incident that occurred on November 15, 1994. During trial proceedings, his age was recorded as 20 years in 2001, suggesting he was 14 years old at the time of the offence. Despite raising the plea of juvenility multiple times, the appellant’s claim was overlooked at various judicial stages due to procedural lapses and reliance on irrelevant evidence such as his bank account details.
The appellant was convicted, sentenced to death by the trial court, and later had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment with a stipulation that he remain incarcerated until the age of 60. He continued to assert his juvenility through review petitions, curative petitions, and writ petitions, supported by school certificates and ossification tests, which indicated his age as 14 at the time of the offence.
Legal Issues
Juvenility Determination: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, even after final disposal of his case.Judicial Oversight: Whether prior courts erred in failing to properly adjudicate the plea of juvenility under the applicable legal framework.Impact of Constitutional Provisions: The role of constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 15, and 21, in ensuring the appellant’s rights to rehabilitation and protection as a juvenile in conflict with law.
Judicial Observations
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional mandate for protecting juveniles, emphasizing the principles of reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“2015 Act”) requires courts to determine the age of an accused if juvenility is raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case.
Key Points of Law and Analysis
1. Role of the Court in Discovering the Truth:
Justice M.M. Sundresh emphasized that courts are obligated to act as active seekers of truth, particularly in cases involving juveniles. Procedural law must be subordinated to substantive justice when determining juvenility.
2. Constitutional Principles:
The judgment reinforced the constitutional principles of Article 15(3), Article 39(e) and (f), and Article 45, which mandate the State to ensure special care and protection for children. The doctrine of parens patriae was invoked, emphasizing the court’s duty to act as a guardian for juveniles.
3. Plea of Juvenility:
Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act allows juvenility claims to be raised at any stage, including after the final disposal of a case. The court held that the appellant’s claim should have been adjudicated in compliance with this provision.
4. Procedural Lapses in Earlier Rulings:
The trial court, High Court, and prior proceedings in the Supreme Court failed to properly adjudicate the appellant’s juvenility despite school certificates and ossification tests confirming his age as 14 at the time of the offence. The reliance on irrelevant evidence, such as the appellant’s bank account details, was deemed untenable.
5. Retrospective Application of Juvenile Justice Laws:
The court noted that both the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and the 2015 Act allow for retrospective application to cases where the claim of juvenility has not been adjudicated following law.
6. Judicial Review of Presidential Orders:
While the court acknowledged the limited scope of judicial review for Presidential Orders under Article 72 of the Constitution, it clarified that the plea of juvenility and review of the sentence imposed are distinct issues. The failure to apply mandatory provisions of the 2015 Act warranted judicial intervention.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant’s sentence beyond the prescribed limits for juveniles, and ordered his immediate release. It directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to facilitate the appellant’s reintegration into society, focusing on his rights to livelihood, shelter, and sustenance under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Directions to Authorities
The appellant must be provided access to welfare schemes for rehabilitation.The Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority was tasked with assisting the appellant in availing government schemes and ensuring a smooth reintegration into society.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of juveniles under constitutional and statutory mandates. By correcting grave injustices and procedural lapses, the court reaffirmed the principles of fairness, truth, and the rehabilitative spirit of juvenile justice. The decision highlights the judiciary’s duty to go beyond procedural constraints to uphold the fundamental rights of individuals, especially juveniles in conflict with the law.
Click Here to Read the Official Judgment
