Introduction
The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024, decided on 8 January 2025) marks a significant reaffirmation of the principles underlying the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The case is a compelling narrative of how procedural lapses and judicial oversights can have far-reaching consequences on the life of a juvenile in conflict with law, and how the highest court can intervene to restore justice, even after decades.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Om Prakash, was charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder for an incident that occurred in 1994. During the trial in 2001, he stated his age as 20 years. However, after his conviction, he raised the plea that he was only 17 years old at the time of the offence. The trial court, relying on his statement about a bank account, presumed he was a major and sentenced him to death. This was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and subsequent review and curative petitions were dismissed. Even mercy petitions before the Governor and the President of India were rejected.
However, during the pendency of the mercy petition before the President, the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 came into effect. An ossification test and a medical age certificate established that the appellant was around 14 years old at the time of the crime. The President commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, with the caveat that he would not be released until he turned 60.
Issues for Consideration
The primary legal issue was whether the plea of juvenility, raised under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, could be entertained after the final disposal of the case, and whether the courts had erred in not properly adjudicating this plea at earlier stages.
Supreme Court’s Findings
1. Recognition of Juvenility
The Court categorically held that there was no dispute regarding the appellant’s age: he was 14 at the time of the offence. The Court observed that at every stage, the appellant’s plea of juvenility was either ignored or superficially considered, amounting to a grave miscarriage of justice.
2. Duty of the Courts
The judgment emphasized that the justice delivery system is fundamentally about discovering the truth. The Court criticized the earlier approach as being passive and failing to actively seek the truth regarding the appellant’s age, which is crucial in cases involving juvenility.
3. Interpretation of Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act
Section 9(2) allows the plea of juvenility to be raised "even after final disposal of the case." The Court held that this provision must be given full effect: if a person was a child at the time of the offence, they must be treated as such under the law, regardless of procedural lapses or the stage of the proceedings.
4. Retrospective Application of Rules
The Court clarified that Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007-which prescribes the hierarchy of documents for age determination-applies retrospectively, especially in cases where no proper inquiry was previously conducted.
5. Mistake of the Court Should Not Prejudice the Accused
Citing the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (no one should suffer because of the act of the court), the Supreme Court held that judicial mistakes cannot deprive a person of their rightful benefit, especially when the error is apparent and undisputed.
6. Limited Judicial Review of Presidential Orders
While the power of pardon under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution is sovereign and subject to limited judicial review, the Court held that an independent plea under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act must still be adjudicated on its own merits.
Relief Granted
The Supreme Court set aside the sentence imposed in excess of what is permissible under the Juvenile Justice Act, while maintaining the conviction. Importantly, the Court directed the State Legal Services Authority to facilitate the appellant’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society, emphasizing his right to livelihood, shelter, and sustenance under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Wider Significance
Justice as Truth
The judgment reiterates that justice is the pursuit of truth, and courts must actively seek to uncover it, especially in cases involving social welfare legislation.
Role of Juvenile Courts
Juvenile courts are not merely punitive but are expected to act as institutions of reformation and rehabilitation, treating children in conflict with law as victims needing care and protection.
Constitutional Mandate
The decision underscores the constitutional mandate to treat children with compassion and to ensure their rights to equality, protection, and development are upheld, even if it means revisiting cases long after they have been disposed of.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Om Prakash’s case is a landmark in juvenile justice jurisprudence. It sends a clear message: procedural errors and judicial oversights cannot stand in the way of substantive justice, especially for children. The judgment not only corrects a historical wrong but also strengthens the legal framework for the protection, rehabilitation, and reintegration of juveniles in conflict with law.
References:
-
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
-
Supreme Court Judgment: Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India and Another,[2025] 1 S.C.R. 363
No comments:
Post a Comment