Improper Rejection Of Juvenility Claim Even In SC's Curative Jurisdiction Not Final; Fresh Plea Can Be Raised : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a plea of juvenility, which was not properly considered by Courts as per due procedure, cannot be treated as final. Therefore, a fresh plea of juvenility can be raised when the plea of juvenility was improperly adjudicated upon in the previous rounds.

For context, plea of juvenility is a plea raised by accused/convicts that they were minors at the time of the alleged offence and hence, they could not have bee tried by regular courts.

The Court made this significant observation while accepting the plea of juvenility raised by a convict, despite the fact that all courts, including the Supreme Court, had previously rejected the same. The Court observed that in the earlier rounds, there was no proper adjudication, and hence, the convict cannot be prevented from raising the plea again.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar observed :

"Merely because a casual adjudication has taken place, it does not mean that a plea of juvenility cannot be raised subsequently. This is for the simple reason that the plea of juvenility has not attained finality. 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."

The appellant before the Supreme Court, Om Prakash, was initially sentenced to death for the offence of murder alleged to have been committed in the year 1994. Although he raised the plea of juvenility at the time of sentence hearing, the trial court treated him as a major. The High Court also affirmed the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court too dismissed his appeal, affirming the death sentence. After that, he filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court, producing a school certificate, showing him to be a minor at the time of the offence. In the curative petition, the State of Uttarakhand certified that the appellant was only 14 years old at the time of the offence. However, the curative petition was dismissed.

Later, the appellant filed a mercy petition before the President. In 2012, the President commuted the appellant's death sentence to life imprisonment but with a condition that he should not be released until he attained the age of 60 years.

In 2019, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand against the Presidential order and also raising a fresh plea of juvenility. The High Court dismissed the writ petition citing limited scope of judicial review over Presidential orders. The present appeal was filed against the said judgment of the High Court.

Interestingly, the State reiterated its earlier admission (which was made in curative proceedings) that the appellant was aged only 14 years at the time of the crime.

The Supreme Court observed that the earlier dismissal of the juvenility claim cannot be a bar for considering the plea again, as there was no proper adjudication. The Court noted that the procedural mandate under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 was not complied with. Also, there could not have been any reliance on the statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, particularly when he was asked to give his particulars for the purpose of recording his statement. Even the said statement shows that he was 20 years of age at the time of making his deposition, which could only mean that he was 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence, the Court said.

Further, the Courts in the previous rounds had placed reliance on the fact that the appellant had a bank account to conclude that he was a major at the time of the offence. However, the appellant in the subsequent round produced RTI replies to show that bank accounts can be opened for minors as well.

Dismissal of juvenility claim even by SC in curative jurisdiction not a bar for fresh claim

Explaining that there was no bar in considering the plea again, the judgment authored by Justice Sundresh stated :

"..when such a plea is not treated as one under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act in compliance with the procedural mandate specified thereunder, an order rejecting such a plea would not be termed as a final one. To put it differently, even assuming a plea of juvenility was raised but not considered appropriately at the time of disposal of a Special Leave Petition/Statutory Criminal Appeal, a Review Petition, or a Curative Petition thereafter, it would not bar a competent Court from deciding the said issue by following due procedure."

The Court however clarified that if an adjudication is based on due determination, then there may not be any room for another round of litigation.

Role of Constitutional Courts in taking care of juveniles

The Court stated that a child involved in a crime is not to be seen as a delinquent but as a victim. Hence, the Courts have to exercise a parens patria jurisdiction through the lens of reformation and rehabilitation.

"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 this 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. Doing so is not an exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 32, 136 or 226 of the Constitution, 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," the Court observed.

Plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court

Referring to Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court stated that the plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court.

"The plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court, meaning thereby that there is no question of finality in this regard until and unless an application filed, invoking this provision, is determined in accordance with the 2015 Act and the relevant rules. When such a plea is raised, it shall be recognised and cannot be brushed aside in a casual or whimsical manner. A due determination must be made by judiciously considering the material available on record. The Court is expected to travel an extra mile to satisfy its conscience as to whether the case on hand would attract the provisions of the 2015 Act and, for the aforesaid purpose, the process enumerated thereunder will have to be necessarily followed."

Citing the proviso to Section 9(2), the Court further clarified that the 2015 Act is applicable even to a person who attained majority before the commencment of the 2015 Act.

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar appeared for the appellant. Project 39A of National Law University Delhi provided him with legal assistance.