Even In The SC’s Curative Jurisdiction, An Improper Rejection Of A Juvenility Claim Is Not Final; The Supreme Court May Hear A New Plea

Last Updated on January 9, 2025 by Arti Kumari

A fresh plea of juvenility can be raised when the plea of juvenility was improperly adjudicated upon in the previous rounds, as the Supreme Court has held that a plea of juvenility that was improperly considered by courts in accordance with due procedure cannot be treated as final. To put it in context, a plea of juvenility is one made by accused or convicted individuals who claim that they were minors at the time of the alleged offense and, therefore, could not have been tried by regular courts.

This important comment was made by the Court when it accepted a convicted person’s plea of juvenility, even though the Supreme Court and all other courts had previously rejected it. The Court noted that since there was improper adjudication in the previous rounds, the convicted party cannot be stopped from entering a new plea.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar observed that; It does not follow that a plea of juvenility cannot be made later just because a casual adjudication has occurred. This is due to the straightforward fact that the defense of juvenility has not reached a definitive conclusion. It is impossible to declare that finality has been reached as long as a party’s rights remain intact. The decision made in response to a plea that has been raised but not yet decided would not constitute reaching finality.

Om Prakash, the appellant in front of the Supreme Court, was first given the death penalty for a 1994 murder charge. The trial court considered him as a major even though he entered the plea of juvenility during the sentencing hearing. Additionally, the High Court upheld the lower court’s ruling. His appeal was also denied by the Supreme Court, which upheld the death penalty. He then submitted a curative appeal to the Supreme Court, presenting a certificate of education attesting to his status as a minor at the time of the offense. The appellant was just 14 years old at the time of the offense, according to the State of Uttarakhand’s certification in the curative petition. The curative petition, however, was denied.

The appellant later petitioned the President for mercy. The appellant’s death sentence was commuted to life in prison by the President in 2012, but only on the proviso that he must not be released until he is 60.

He challenged the Presidential ruling and made a new claim of juvenility in a writ suit he filed in the Uttarakhand High Court in 2019. Citing the narrow scope of judicial review of presidential decisions, the High Court denied the writ petition. The High Court’s aforementioned ruling was the target of the current appeal.

Curiously, the State reaffirmed its prior acknowledgement—made during curative proceedings—that the appellant was only 14 years old at the time of the offense.

The Supreme Court noted that the procedural mandate under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 was not followed, and that there could not have been any reliance on the statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, especially when he was asked to provide his particulars for the purpose of recording his statement. Although the aforementioned statement indicates that he was 20 years of age at the time of making his deposition, which could only mean that he was 14 years of age at the time of the offense, the Court noted that the earlier dismissal of the juvenility claim cannot be a bar to considering the plea again, as there was no proper adjudication.

Additionally, the appellant’s bank account was used by the courts in earlier rounds to determine that he was a major at the time of the offense. But in the next round, the appellant provided RTI responses to demonstrate that minors can also open bank accounts.

According to the Court, a youngster who commits a crime should be viewed as a victim rather than a criminal. As a result, the courts must apply their parens patria jurisdiction while keeping reformation and rehabilitation in mind.

The Court said that the plea of juvenility might be made before any court, citing Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Court also explained that the 2015 Act applies even to those who reached majority prior to the 2015 Act’s implementation, citing the proviso to Section 9(2).

Case Title : Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v State of Uttarakhand