Correcting the course: Supreme Court’s call to uphold juvenile rights
The judgment reflected the judiciary’s role as a protector of juvenile rights, emphasising that courts must go beyond procedural formalities to uncover the truth
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court’s Wednesday judgment releasing a man who spent 25 years in prison for a crime he committed at the age of 14 is a stark reminder of the systemic failures in India’s juvenile justice framework. The man, a minor at the time of the offence, was denied the protections guaranteed under juvenile justice laws, and courts, at all levels, consistently failed to recognise his status as a juvenile. The top court, acknowledging the “gross injustice” that had occurred, not only ordered his immediate release but also directed the Uttarakhand government and the state legal services authority to facilitate his rehabilitation and reintegration .

The judgment delivered by a bench comprising justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar reflected the judiciary’s role as a protector of juvenile rights, emphasising that courts must go beyond procedural formalities to uncover the truth. It has far-reaching implications, not only for the specific case but for the broader understanding and application of juvenile justice in India. Addressing systemic oversights, it reiterated the foundational principles of child protection and welfare as enshrined in the Constitution.
Justice beyond punishment
Juvenile justice in India is built on the principle that children are not to be treated as adults but as individuals deserving of special protection and care because their deviant behaviour is often a result of circumstances rather than intent. A child’s involvement in crime, the top court observed in its judgment, should be understood as a societal failure rather than solely the child’s fault.
Authoring the verdict, justice Sundresh underlined that children in conflict with the law are “inheritors of crime,” victims of circumstances such as poverty, lack of education or adverse social environments. “One must not lose sight of the fact that the child is not responsible for an act of crime, but is rather victimized by it. Such a child is nothing but an inheritor of crime, a legacy which it does not wish to imbibe,” said the bench.
This vision is firmly rooted in the Indian Constitution, with provisions such as Article 15(3), which allows the State to make special laws for children, and Article 39(e) and (f), which call for their protection against exploitation and abandonment. These constitutional principles, combined with international commitments under treaties like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, form the bedrock of India’s juvenile justice framework, according to the court.
The judgment also drew attention to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which reiterates the rehabilitative intent of juvenile justice. The law provides for age determination inquiries, enabling courts to ascertain whether an individual was a juvenile at the time of the offence, and mandates that such protections apply even in cases pending or already decided. This retrospective application, it noted, underscores the State’s obligation to prioritise a child’s rights over procedural limitations.
The courts’ duty to unearth truth
The judgment highlighted the judiciary’s fundamental duty to seek the truth and deliver justice. In the present case, the judiciary’s failure to recognise the appellant’s juvenility at various stages of litigation during the last 23 years was described as a “consistent and tragic” oversight. The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit -- that no one shall suffer because of a court’s mistake -- was invoked, with the court acknowledging that the appellant’s prolonged incarceration was a direct result of judicial error. The bench noted that even after the dismissal of appeals and other legal remedies, constitutional courts retain the duty to examine pleas of juvenility when raised, ensuring that substantive justice is not sacrificed at the altar of procedural finality.
This perspective aligns with earlier judicial pronouncements. In Bhola Bhagat Vs State of Bihar (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that courts must adopt a proactive approach in cases involving juveniles, stressing that justice should not be denied due to procedural lapses. In Shanmugam Vs Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam (2012), the Supreme Court reiterated that “the entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents, and arguments of the parties.”
Evolution of juvenile justice in India
The judgment cited the historical and legal evolution of juvenile justice laws in India, pointing out it reflects a progressive realisation of the need to treat children differently from adults in the justice system. The first comprehensive law, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, sought to establish a uniform framework for addressing juvenile offences. It was later replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which expanded the scope of protections for children and emphasised rehabilitation over punishment.
It highlighted that the current legislation, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, introduced further reforms, classifying offences based on their severity and mandating special procedures for juveniles in conflict with the law. Crucially, the 2015 Act allows juvenility to be determined even after the conclusion of a trial or appeal, ensuring that a child’s rights are not extinguished due to delays or errors in the judicial process. This law is not just procedural but also substantive, requiring courts to adopt a child-centric approach in interpreting its provisions.
In this context, the Supreme Court laid emphasis on the rehabilitative aspects of juvenile justice laws and directed the state to facilitate the appellant’s reintegration into society. The judgment reinforced the principle that justice for juveniles extends beyond legal remedies to include social and psychological support.
Systemic failures and role of constitutional courts
The judgment highlighted glaring systemic failures in India’s juvenile justice system even as it underscored the need for greater awareness and sensitivity among judges and law enforcement agencies. The court held that these failures violated the protective provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates special consideration for children in conflict with the law.
Section 9 (2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, permits the plea of juvenility to be raised at any stage of a proceeding, even after final disposal of a case. The judgment clarified that a failure to properly adjudicate a plea of juvenility prevents a case from attaining legal finality.
“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,” held the bench.
In Abuzar Hossain Vs State of West Bengal (2012), the top court had held that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, and courts must carefully examine all relevant materials before rendering a decision.
The judgment also flagged the crucial role of constitutional courts in ensuring justice, especially in cases where procedural errors or systemic failures deny protection to vulnerable individuals whose rights may be overlooked or violated by lower courts or administrative mechanisms. The bench maintained that when significant lapses occur, such as the failure to recognise a juvenile’s age during a trial or appeal, it becomes the duty of the constitutional courts to intervene and rectify the injustice, even at a belated stage.
The court reaffirmed the principle that justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicalities, particularly when dealing with laws that prioritise welfare and rehabilitation over retribution. “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 21 give effect to the laudable objective of a social welfare legislation,” it noted.
By putting the spotlight on the judiciary’s duty to protect the rights of juveniles, this judgment contributes to a deeper understanding of the juvenile justice system as a cornerstone of India’s commitment to child welfare and constitutional values. The verdict is not merely a correction of past errors but a forward-looking affirmation of the principles underlying juvenile jurisprudence, which must be premised on rehabilitation and reintegration as the ultimate goals.
