Date of the Judgment: July 18, 2013
Citation: (2013) INSC 521
Judges: K.S. Radhakrishnan, J., Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
Can a person who was not considered a juvenile under the old law, be considered a juvenile under the new law? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where the accused was a few days short of 18 years when he committed the crime. The court had to decide whether the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 would apply to someone who was not a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, but was under 18 years of age when the crime was committed. This judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose.

Case Background

The appellant, Ketankumar Gopalbhai Tandel, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, for offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed his appeal on July 24, 2003. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court. The core issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant should be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, since he was under 18 years of age on the date of the offense.

Timeline

Date Event
01.06.1977 Date of birth of the appellant.
06.05.1995 Date of the offense.
1995 Appellant convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad.
24.07.2003 High Court of Gujarat dismissed the appeal.
11.04.2011 Sessions Judge, Valsad, submitted report on the age of the appellant.
18.07.2013 Supreme Court delivered the judgment.

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Gujarat upheld this conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that he should be treated as a juvenile under the 2000 Act. The Sessions Judge, Valsad, was directed by the Supreme Court to determine the appellant’s age on the date of the crime. The Sessions Judge reported that the appellant was not a juvenile based on the 1986 Act.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The 1986 Act defined a juvenile as a person who had not completed 16 years of age. The 2000 Act, however, raised this age to 18 years. The Supreme Court considered Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the 2000 Act, along with Rules 12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Section 2(k) of the 2000 Act defines a “juvenile” or “child” as a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. Section 2(l) defines a “juvenile in conflict with law” as a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence.

Section 7-A of the 2000 Act deals with the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court. Section 20 of the 2000 Act states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the 1986 Act, all cases pending before any court in respect of a juvenile shall be dealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the 2000 Act. Section 49 of the 2000 Act deals with the repeal and savings of the 1986 Act.

See also  Supreme Court Rules Against State in Land Acquisition Case: D.B. Basnett vs. The Collector (2020) INSC 178 (2 March 2020)

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel argued that since the appellant was 17 years, 11 months, and 5 days old on the date of the offense (May 6, 1995), he should be considered a juvenile under the 2000 Act. The counsel emphasized that the 2000 Act should apply retrospectively to cases where the individual was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense, irrespective of whether the trial had already concluded.

The respondent’s counsel contended that the appellant was governed by the 1986 Act. Under the 1986 Act, a person above 16 years of age on the date of the crime was not considered a juvenile. Therefore, the respondent argued that the appellant, being over 16 years old at the time of the offense, should not be granted the benefits of the 2000 Act.

Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellant should be treated as a juvenile
  • Appellant was 17 years, 11 months, and 5 days old on the date of the offense.
  • The 2000 Act should apply retrospectively to those under 18 at the time of the offense.
Appellant should not be treated as a juvenile
  • The 1986 Act applied to the appellant.
  • Under the 1986 Act, a person above 16 years was not a juvenile.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

  1. Whether the appellant, who was not a juvenile under the 1986 Act but was under 18 years of age on the date of the offense, should be considered a juvenile under the 2000 Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision
Whether the appellant should be considered a juvenile under the 2000 Act. The Court held that the appellant should be treated as a juvenile under the 2000 Act, as he was under 18 years of age on the date of the offense.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Authority Court How it was used Legal Point
Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2010) 5 SCC 344 Supreme Court of India Followed Held that all persons below 18 years on the date of the offense would be treated as juveniles under the 2000 Act.
Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan Supreme Court of India Followed Reiterated the principle that the 2000 Act applies to those under 18 years of age at the time of the offense.
Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Statute Interpreted Defined who is a juvenile, the procedure for claiming juvenility, and the retrospective application of the Act.
Rules 12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 Rules Interpreted Clarified the procedures related to determining juvenility.

Judgment

Submission by Parties How the Court Treated the Submission
Appellant should be treated as a juvenile under the 2000 Act. The Court accepted this submission, holding that the appellant was a juvenile under the 2000 Act.
Appellant should not be treated as a juvenile under the 1986 Act. The Court rejected this submission, stating that the 2000 Act applied retrospectively.
Authority How it was viewed by the Court
Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2010) 5 SCC 344 The court followed this authority which held that persons below 18 years on the date of the offense would be treated as juveniles under the 2000 Act.
Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan The court followed this authority, reiterating the principle that the 2000 Act applies to those under 18 years of age at the time of the offense.
See also  Supreme Court clarifies contract labour absorption under CLRA Act: Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Ramcharan (2022)

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the rights of children in conflict with the law. The court emphasized that the 2000 Act was enacted to provide a more child-friendly approach to juvenile justice. The court also noted that the 2000 Act has a retrospective application, meaning it applies to cases pending on the date of its commencement. The court’s reasoning focused on the welfare of the child, and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the 2000 Act.

Sentiment Percentage
Child Welfare and Protection 60%
Retrospective Application of the 2000 Act 30%
Interpretation of the Act 10%
Category Percentage
Fact 20%
Law 80%
Issue: Whether the appellant is a juvenile under the 2000 Act
↓
Appellant was under 18 on the date of the offense
↓
The 2000 Act applies retrospectively
↓
Appellant is a juvenile under the 2000 Act

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the 2000 Act, which, according to the court, clearly stated that all persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of the commission of the offense would be treated as juveniles, even if the claim of juvenility was raised after they had attained the age of 18 years. The court stated, “all persons who were below the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-2001 would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the date of the commencement of the Act of 2000 and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted.” The court also noted that the 2000 Act was enacted to provide a more child-friendly approach to juvenile justice, and that it should be interpreted in a way that promotes the welfare of the child.

The Court observed, “the age of the appellant as on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 06.05.1995 was 17 years, 11 months and 5 days and hence less than 18 years, and hence when we apply provisions of the 2000 Act, the appellant has to be treated as a juvenile, being less than 18 years of age on the date of the crime and hence entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the 2000 Act read with Rules.” The court also affirmed that the order of conviction was correct but set aside the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The matter was sent to the concerned Juvenile Justice Court for imposing an adequate sentence.

The court further stated, “We are therefore inclined to affirm the order of conviction, however, the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is sent to the concerned Juvenile Justice Court for imposing adequate sentence.”

Key Takeaways

  • The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 applies to individuals who were under 18 years of age on the date of the offense, even if they were not considered juveniles under the previous law.
  • The 2000 Act has retrospective application, meaning it applies to cases pending on the date of its commencement.
  • The welfare of the child is a paramount consideration in interpreting the provisions of the 2000 Act.
See also  Matrimonial Home Rights: Supreme Court Directs Accommodation in Redeveloped Property in Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (27 April 2020)

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The matter was sent to the concerned Juvenile Justice Court for imposing an adequate sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 applies to all individuals who were under 18 years of age on the date of the offense, irrespective of whether they were considered juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. This judgment clarified the retrospective application of the 2000 Act and ensured that the benefits of the new law would be extended to all eligible individuals. This decision reinforces the principle that the welfare of the child is a paramount consideration in juvenile justice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the appellant, who was under 18 years of age on the date of the offense, should be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Court set aside the sentence and directed the matter to be sent to the Juvenile Justice Court for sentencing. This decision underscores the retrospective application of the 2000 Act and the importance of considering the welfare of the child in matters of juvenile justice.

Category

Parent category: Criminal Law
Child category: Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
Child category: Section 2(k), Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
Child category: Section 2(l), Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
Child category: Section 7-A, Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
Child category: Section 20, Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
Child category: Section 49, Juvenile Justice Act, 2000

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether a person who was under 18 years old when they committed a crime should be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, even if they were not considered a juvenile under the previous law.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 applies to all individuals who were under 18 years old on the date of the offense, regardless of whether they were considered juveniles under the previous law.

Q: What does “retrospective application” mean in this context?
A: Retrospective application means that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 applies to cases that were pending when the law came into effect, even if the crime was committed before the law was enacted.

Q: What happens to the appellant now?
A: The appellant’s sentence was set aside, and the case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Court for a new sentence, considering the appellant as a juvenile.

Q: Why is this decision important?
A: This decision is important because it clarifies the application of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and ensures that all individuals who were under 18 years old when they committed a crime are treated as juveniles, in line with the principle of child welfare.

Source: Ketankumar Gopalbhai Tandel vs. State of Gujarat