Juvenility Can't Be Declared Without Determining Date Of Birth : Supreme Court On SP Leader Abdullah Azam Khan's Plea

The Supreme Court yesterday (November 8) said that it needs to hear on merits whether the conviction of Samajwadi Party leader Mohammed Abdullah Azam Khan, based on which he was disqualified as a member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, can be set aside on determination of juvenility. 

On September 26, 2023, the Court directed the District Judge, Rampur, to submit a report regarding the date of birth of Samajwadi Party leader Mohammed Abdullah Azam Khan while hearing his plea to stay the conviction in a case that resulted in his disqualification as a member of the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly.

On November 5, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Khan and submitted that the report on his date of birth was in his favour and therefore, there is nothing else left in the natter. Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj appeared via videoconferencing and prayed that the matter be kept on Friday not before acknowledging that the report is indeed in his favour.

Based on the juvenility report, before a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, Sibal yesterday submitted that Khan cannot be convicted and therefore, cannot be disqualified. The report says that Khan has two dates of birth, 1990 and 1993. However, Nataraj stated that the report only says he was a minor at the date of the incident. 

In February 2023, Khan was convicted for an offence during a dharna staged along with his father fifteen years ago. It was alleged they had blocked traffic after their vehicle was stopped by the police for checking. The trial court sentenced him to two years imprisonment for the offence under Section 353 IPC (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty). It is Khan's case that he was a juvenile (15 years old) merely accompanying his father. He had approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court on April 14 dismissed his plea to stay the conviction.

Justice Sundresh asked for clarification as to whether the present SLP pertains to the setting aside of the conviction, to which Sibal replied that it was not. 

The Court stated that they accept the report on juvenility. But added that as per Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the trial Court has to conduct an enquiry to declare a person's date of birth and then conclude whether he is a minor or major. 

To this, Sibal replied: "So, he has declared what? That I am a minor. I have a suit pending that my date of birth is 1991...There are two dates of birth. Let me give you the background. I had a passport where the date of birth is 1993. A few years before I fought elections, that date according to me was wrong and I said, it should be 1990. An election petition was filed against me which came up to this Court. This Court came to the conclusion in the election petition, that my date of birth was actually 1993. On that ground, the election was set aside. When an election was held and I won. After I won this, then in a conviction matter, they set side my election saying that you are a major. I said, no, no I was a juvenile. Take either date of birth into account...When your Lordship said, let's get a finding whether you are a juvenile or not."

However, Justice Kumar intercepted and added: "To declare you as juvenile, the enquiry contemplated under Section 7 of the JJ Act, has to determine your date of birth without which they cannot declare you as juvenile."

Sibal maintained a stand that the question of determining the date of birth does not arise because it has been determined that he was a juvenile at the time of the incident. He said: "Taking either date of birth, I am still a juvenile."

Nataraj also affirmed that the conviction cannot go away because he was convicted after a full-fledged trial. He also added that the present SLP is only against the order of the Allahabad High Court which refused to suspend his conviction. 

At this point, the Court suggested that the matter should be heard by the High Court and stated that it "does not want to expand its jurisdiction".

Click Here To Read/Download Order