Supreme Court Reviews Its Order, Reiterates Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 Are Relevant Rules For Considering Question Of Juvenility

The Division Bench of CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal agreed that there was a manifest error and decided that it must be corrected as the litigant cannot be made to suffer for the Court's error. While doing so, the Court corrected its 2019 judgment against which review was sought and held that Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 is required to be looked into.

“In view of the error which is apparent on the fact of it, the mistake occurred in a judgment has to be corrected for the reason that a party shall not be made to suffer for the mistake or error committed by this Court and for that, in our view, the petitioner cannot be asked to work out remedies elsewhere.”

In the present case, the present appellant/ accused person was convicted of the offence of murder. Against his conviction, the appellant raised the issue of juvenility, claiming that he was 18 years old. Consequently, the matter reached before the Supreme Court. 

Therein, the appellant referred to Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, which deals with the procedure for determining age. Essentially, it sought that, as per this Rule, the date of birth certificate from the school has to be preferred to the birth certificate given by the Corporation. This was because reliance on the school certificate would have strengthened the appellant's case.

However, the Top Court observed that the 2007 Rules were not applicable as the offence occurred in 2000 when these Rules were not enforced.

“17. We are of the view that the relevant Rules which were required to be looked into are the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001.,” the Court had held.

It may be noted that, as per the 2001 Rules, no such preference was given to birth certificates obtained from the school.

While reviewing this judgment, the Court placed its reliance on the case of Murti vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 7 SCC 517. Therein, it was categorically held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 were applicable while considering the question of juvenility.

Further, in the case of Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2009 (13) SCC 211, it was held that the benefit of the increase of the age of the juvenility to 18 years introduced by the Act of 2000 will apply retrospectively.

In view of this, the Court reviewed the above-mentioned paragraph 17 and held:

“The said requirement, under paragraph 17 of the judgment stands corrected as one requiring to look into the relevant rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.”

Case Title: Review Petition In GAURAV KUMAR @ MONU vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA., Diary No., 38282 of 2019

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Click here to read the order