The Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which granted the release of a man who had spent 25 years in prison for a crime committed when he was just 14 years old, sheds light on significant failures within India’s juvenile justice system. The individual was denied the protections afforded under juvenile laws, and multiple courts failed to recognize his juvenile status throughout his trial. In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “gross injustice” and ordered his immediate release, directing the Uttarakhand government and state legal services authority to support his rehabilitation and reintegration.
India’s juvenile justice framework is based on the principle that children are to be treated with special care, not as adults, recognizing that their deviant behavior is often influenced by their circumstances, rather than intent. The judgment highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the factors leading children to commit crimes, which often stem from socio-economic challenges such as poverty, lack of education, and adverse environments.
Justice Sundresh, authoring the verdict, emphasized that juveniles should not be punished like adults. Instead, they should be seen as victims of their circumstances, “inheritors of crime,” who need guidance, care, and protection. This philosophy aligns with constitutional provisions such as Article 15(3), which allows special laws for children, and Articles 39(e) and (f), which mandate their protection from exploitation and abuse. The ruling also draws from international agreements, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to affirm the rights of children in conflict with the law.
The judgment also addressed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizing its rehabilitative approach and the importance of determining juvenility at all stages of legal proceedings, even in cases that have already been decided. This retrospective application underscores the state’s duty to prioritize children’s rights over procedural technicalities.
The ruling reiterated that the judiciary’s core responsibility is to seek justice and uncover the truth, even in cases where procedural errors or oversights occur. In this case, the failure to acknowledge the appellant’s juvenility over two decades of legal proceedings was recognized as a “tragic” mistake, and the court called for constitutional courts to examine such pleas to ensure substantive justice is delivered.
India’s juvenile justice system has evolved over time, with the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, followed by the 2000 and 2015 amendments, all emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. The latest law allows for age determination even after the trial has concluded, ensuring that the rights of children are protected despite delays or judicial errors.
The ruling highlights systemic failures within the justice system and calls for greater awareness among judges and law enforcement agencies. It emphasizes that justice for juveniles should not be confined to legal remedies alone but should include social and psychological support, as well as efforts toward reintegration into society.
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant step in reinforcing juvenile rights, advocating for systemic reforms, and ensuring that justice for children in conflict with the law is not hindered by procedural lapses or delays. This judgment serves as both a correction of past errors and a forward-looking affirmation of a child-centric approach to justice.
