Supreme Court Rules on Juvenility Claims After Final Case Disposal in Criminal Cases (2025) INSC 43

Date of the Judgment: 08 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 43

Judges: M.M. Sundresh, J. and Aravind Kumar, J.

Can a person claim to be a juvenile even after their case has been decided by the highest court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a man convicted of murder, who claimed he was a minor at the time of the offense. The court examined whether such claims can be considered after the final disposal of a case, emphasizing the importance of truth and justice, especially for juveniles.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, delivered the judgment. Justice M.M. Sundresh authored the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around an appellant who was charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder. The incident occurred on 15 November 1994. During the trial, the appellant stated his age as 20 years as of 7 March 2001, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, he later claimed he was about 17 years old at the time of the offense during the sentence hearing.

The trial court, relying on his statement about having a bank account, presumed he was a major and sentenced him to death. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, also noting the severity of the crime. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, presenting a birth certificate from Dariya Para Bodinath Board School, dated 28 April 2001. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court’s reasoning.

Undeterred, the appellant filed a review petition, claiming he was a minor at the time of the offense and stating his deceased employer filled out the bank account details. The review petition was also dismissed. A mercy petition to the Governor of Uttarakhand was rejected as well.

Subsequently, the appellant’s parents and a social worker filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, including a school certificate dated 19 June 2003 and a transfer certificate dated 28 April 2001. This writ petition was dismissed, but the court allowed the appellant to file a curative petition. In response to the curative petition, the respondent produced another certificate dated 7 January 2006 from the same school, stating the appellant was 14 years old at the time of the offense. Despite this, the curative petition was dismissed on 6 February 2006.

After the amendment incorporating Section 7A into the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the appellant’s mother filed a mercy petition with the President of India. During this time, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 came into effect. An ossification test, conducted at the appellant’s request, indicated that he was around 14 years old at the time of the offense. The President commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment on 8 May 2012, with the condition that he would not be released until he reached 60 years of age.

The appellant filed an RTI application and discovered that minors above 10 years old could have independent bank accounts if they could read and write, and that no cheque book was issued for his account. A subsequent curative petition was rejected by the registry. In 2019, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the Presidential Order and seeking relief under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the power of judicial review over a presidential order is limited and that the proceedings against the appellant had reached finality.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950: Ensures equality before the law.
• Article 15(3) of the Constitution: Allows the state to make special provisions for women and children.
• Article 39(e) and (f) of the Constitution: Directs the state to ensure children are not abused and are given opportunities to develop healthily.
• Article 45 of the Constitution: Provides for early childhood care and education.
• Article 47 of the Constitution: Directs the state to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living.
• Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: Defines “juvenile” as a boy under 16 or a girl under 18 years of age.
• Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: Requires the competent authority to inquire about the age of a person brought before it.
• Section 2(k) and (l) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: Defines “juvenile” as a person who has not completed 18 years of age.
• Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: Specifies the procedure when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court.
  “7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court. – (1)Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as m ay be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act . (2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub -section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.”
• Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: Provides special provisions for pending cases involving juveniles.
  “20. Special provision in respect of pending cases – Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been sat isfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence: Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile. Explanation . In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (l) of section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisio ns had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was commi tted.”
• Section 2(23) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Defines “court” as a civil court with jurisdiction in adoption and guardianship matters.
• Section 5 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: States that an inquiry can continue even if a child completes 18 years of age during the process.
• Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Specifies that a person who committed an offense below the age of 18 should be treated as a child during the inquiry process.
• Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Outlines the procedure to be followed by a magistrate not empowered under this Act when a person claims to be a child.
  “9. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act – (1). When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under th is Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction. (2) In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on t he date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearl y as may be: Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereu nder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (3) If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect. (4) In case a person under this section is required to be kept in protective custody, while the person’s claim of being a child is being inquired into , such person may be placed, in the intervening period in a place of safety.”
• Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Specifies the documents to be considered for age determination.
  “94. Presumption and Determination of age (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining — (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i ) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.”
• Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007: Outlines the procedure for age determination.
  “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – (a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b)and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year . and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses ( a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.”
• Article 72 of the Constitution: Grants the President the power to pardon.
• Article 161 of the Constitution: Grants the Governor the power to pardon.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred by not considering his independent plea for juvenility under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
• He contended that there was no judicial finality on the issue of his juvenility and that the phrase “any stage” in Section 9(2) should be given an extended meaning.
• The appellant emphasized that there was no contrary finding against his claim of juvenility, which he had consistently raised at every stage of the proceedings.
• He argued that grave injustice had been done due to the lack of proper adjudication on his juvenility claim.
• The appellant sought immediate release and compensation for the loss of his formative years in prison.
• The appellant relied on Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 17 SCC 699 and Hari Dutt Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Order of the Supreme Court dated 07.02.2022 in Writ Petition (Crl.) 367 of 2021, to argue that Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, can be invoked even after the final disposal of the case.
• He cited Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211, Abdul Razzaq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 637, and T Barai v. Henry A h Hoe and another, (1983) 1 SCC 177, to support the beneficial and retrospective applicability of changes in the law.
• The appellant also argued that his claim of juvenility can be considered even after the President has exercised powers under Article 72 of the Constitution of India, citing Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 204 and Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant was attempting to reopen an issue that had already attained finality.
• They contended that the Supreme Court had already adjudicated the matter in the earlier round of litigation.
• The respondents argued that the Mercy Petition was considered under the constitutional mandate and did not require further interference.
• They claimed that the Special Leave Petition was not maintainable.
• The respondents stated that the bone ossification test could not be the sole basis for declaring the appellant a minor.
• The respondents argued that there was due compliance with Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.
• The respondents cited Vinay Sharma v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 391 and Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2021) 13 SCC 249, in support of their arguments.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether a claim of juvenility can be raised and considered even after the final disposal of the case.
2. Whether the High Court erred in not considering the independent prayer sought by the Appellant under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
3. Whether the Presidential Order can be reviewed when a claim of juvenility is raised.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court held that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case. The court emphasized that the High Court had erred in not considering the independent prayer of the appellant under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The court clarified that it was not reviewing the Presidential Order but rather ensuring the mandatory provisions of the 2015 Act were applied.

The court stated that the failure of the lower courts to apply the mandatory provisions of the Act led to the court’s intervention. The court also noted that the executive order does not preclude the court from considering the plea of juvenility.

Orders:

1. The judgment passed by the High Court was set aside.
2. The matter was remanded back to the High Court to consider the independent plea of the appellant under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
3. The High Court was directed to determine the age of the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Rules made thereunder.

Flowchart of Juvenility Claim Process

Key Takeaways

This Supreme Court judgment has significant implications for the handling of juvenility claims in criminal cases:

• Plea of Juvenility at Any Stage: The judgment reinforces that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including after the final disposal of the case. This ensures that the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act is extended to all who are entitled to it, regardless of procedural delays or oversight.
• Independent Consideration: The judgment clarifies that claims of juvenility must be considered independently, even if other legal proceedings or executive orders are in place. Courts are obligated to address such claims under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act.
• Mandatory Application of the Act: The judgment underscores the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Courts must actively ensure that the provisions are applied correctly and give effect to the social welfare legislation.
• Emphasis on Truth and Justice: The court emphasized the importance of seeking the truth and ensuring justice, especially for juveniles. Procedural hurdles should not prevent the court from determining the true age of the accused.
• Retrospective Application: The court reiterated the principle of retrospective application of beneficial legislation, ensuring that the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act are extended to individuals who were juveniles at the time of the offense, even if the law was amended later.