"Reimagining Justice: Transforming Juvenile Laws for a Brighter Future"

I believe that none of us have forgotten the horrific Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case of Delhi which shook the nation. During its trial, the grim reality and the lacunae in the legislative framework regarding the position of juveniles accused of committing serious and heinous offences was laid bare.

In fact, in Dr Subramaniyam Swami v. Raju Th. Juvenile Justice Board, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India express its inability to interfere and opined that the petitioner should approach the legislature for enacting the necessary reforms in the juvenile justice system of India.   

Gladly, the Legislature repealed the existing Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and re-enacted the new Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 which implemented significant improvements in the existing legislative framework.

Under the new act, inter alia the following improvements were enacted keeping in mind the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:

1.     Nature of offence: criminal offences were categorized into petty, severe and heinous offences

2.     Manner of trial: depending upon the severity of the offence, like a crime committed atrociously and brutally, the juveniles between the ages of 16 to 18 years may be tried as adults.

Even after the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, a lacunae vis-à-vis offences where a minimum punishment has not been prescribed but the maximum punishment exceeds 7 years of imprisonment, or where the minimum punishment prescribed is less than 7 years and the maximum punishment prescribed is in excess of such time period.

In the year 2020, this issue was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi wherein similar to the position taken in Dr Subramaniyam Swami v. Raju Th. Juvenile Justice Board, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India expressed its inability to interfere and brought the lacunae in the legislative framework to the urgent attention of the Ministry of Law as well as the Ministry of Women and Child Development in addition to the legislature for prompt and necessary action.

Unfortunately, recent events have once again drawn attention to the inadequacies and failures of the existing legislative framework in dealing with serious offences committed by persons under the age of 18, i.e., juveniles. While new offences and punishments have been framed with respect to certain categories of offences under the new criminal laws which are yet to be enforced, the underlying issue with respect to juveniles as discussed above has not been remedied till date.

In the past few years, there have been increasing instances of juveniles being involved in grave and serious offences especially motor vehicle accidents in high end vehicles which have resulted in innocent deaths.

One such unfortunate incident has transpired recently when in the wee hours of 19th May 2024 in Pune, Maharashtra, an unregistered super car being driven by a juvenile under the influence of alcohol and running at the speed of approximately 200 kmph hit a two-wheeler from behind which led to the tragic demise of both passengers on the spot. The entire incident has caused trauma and outcry amongst the public at large especially in view of the apparent leniency shown by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).

There was an enormous outrage in public after the news came out that the accused has been granted bail. The shocking part is that the bail was granted within 15 hours of his arrest, that too on a Sunday in a country where cases are pending for even the trial to commence for 10-12 years or more. The conditions of the bail as reported in the media had added fuel to fire due to the evident leniency shown to the juvenile.

"Juvenile"!!! The accused in the present case is a juvenile. Upon his arrest from the incident spot, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) wherein after considering the charges and facts of the case, the accused was granted bail.

As per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, Section 15 requires the Board to conduct a preliminary assessment of the child's mental and physical capacity to commit the severe crime, to determine whether the child has attained or is above the age of sixteen. The Board is solely responsible for conducting such preliminary assessment and the same shall be completed within a period of 03 months from the date when the accused was first produced before the said Board. The two conditions which necessitate the preliminary assessment are:

1.     Whether the act constitutes as "heinous crime" as defined under the Act?

2.     Whether the accused charged for the crimes is between the age of 16 to 18?

As far as the second condition is concerned, the same is fulfilled as the accused being of about 17 years old. When it came to the first condition, the charges levied upon the accused did not fit in the category or constitute "heinous crime".

The Police authorities at first invoked Section 304 A of the IPC amongst other sections. A crime under Section 304A of the IPC is a bailable offence which is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Since, the first condition under Section 15 was not fulfilled and the charge framed was based on bailable offences, the JJB was bound to consider the bail application in favour of the accused.

During the public outrage and criticism of the entire system, the police was still actively investigating the entire incident and after discovery of incriminating evidence, the authorities added a charge under Section 304 of the IPC, a non-bailable offence which is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.

It is important to understand that in a bailable offence the general rule favours the grant of bail and denial of bail is an exception. Whereas, in a non-bailable offence, the contrary is applicable.

The police filed an application before the JJB, soon after the bail was granted to the accused, requesting the JJB to try the accused as an adult as the offence is severe. Upon rejection of the application, the Police immediately moved the Hon'ble Sessions Court which directed the police to approach the JJB under its review powers in view of the new developments. Accordingly, when the matter was placed before the JJB for review, it duly cancelled the bail of the accused and remanded him to the juvenile observation home till June 5, 2024.

It is important to note that the issue of trial of the accused as an adult is still pending consideration. Such determination will have to be based on Sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. Hence, the concerns raised by the State and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shilpa Mittal (Supra.) will once again be brought to the forefront.

As discussed above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India raised concerns regarding the existing legislative framework in Shilpa Mittal (Supra.). This include the following observations:

1.     Nature of offence: The three categories in which criminal offences have been defined in respect of juveniles are narrow and do not take into consideration a fourth category of offences which might generally be termed as heinous but due to the clearly spelt out categorizations cannot be defined as 'heinous offences'. There is a significant gap in the legislation while dealing with the various categories in which the offences have been categorized based on their nature/severity. However, the judiciary cannot step into the shoes of the legislature and therefore, cannot fill such gaps in a definitive manner since such conduct would overstep the constitutional mandate of the judiciary.

2.     Manner of trial: Due to the specific and narrow nature of instances where juveniles may be tried as adults, the legislative intent is clear and categorical. In such circumstances, reading down the word 'minimum' from the definition of heinous offence would be tantamount to expanding the definition in contradiction to the legislative intent. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court could not legislate it could not take such actions. Therefore, as a stop gap measure, it was deemed necessary to interpret the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 in such a manner that the JJB could be guided effectively while also ensuring the best interest of juveniles. Hence, while directing the Government of India to take the necessary steps, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the fourth category of offences would be considered as serious offences and thereby outside the purview of trial of the accused juveniles as adults till appropriate amendments were enacted.

Even after a detailed observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above-mentioned judgment passed in the year 2020 and an insistence to ensure that the issue raised in this judgment is addressed by the Parliament as early as possible, the Parliament has not taken any step towards the same.

Not only in India, but all other legislations, such laws related to juvenile delinquency are framed focusing upon the rehabilitation, care, protection and reinventing the juvenile delinquents by corrective measures.

It is true that all juveniles cannot be seen through the same lens, but a stringent action to revisit these laws is very much necessary. Keeping in mind the observations and issues addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various cases, the legislature is required to amend the law pertaining to juveniles.

There have been several developments in the case leading to the arrest of accused's father and the manager of clubs wherein the accused was served with alcohol, arrest of accused's grandfather for forcing the driver to admit the crime on behalf of the accused, tampering with evidences and so on. The case has highlighted several shortcomings of our criminal justice system and the continuous developments have given reasons to believe that the system requires a complete overhaul to prevent maladministration of justice.

However, we must not loose hope and at the same time we must play an active role in observing the manner in which our criminal justice system operates since the present case has shown that public scrutiny and accountability can lead to a positive impact in the manner in which the stakeholders of the system conduct themselves.