Revolutionising Juvenile Justice: Landmark case of Om Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand and its legacy The Supreme Court goes beyond procedural rigidities ensuring juvenile’s their rights
13, Jan 2025 | CJP Legal Team
The case of Om Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand revolves around the appellant, Om Prakash, who was charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder, stemming from an incident on November 15, 1994. During his trial, the appellant’s age was recorded as 20 years under Section 313 of the CrPC. However, he asserted that he was 17 years old at the time of the offense, making him a juvenile under prevailing laws. Despite producing a school certificate and undergoing ossification tests to substantiate his claim, his plea of juvenility was dismissed at various judicial stages, including the trial court, appellate courts, review, and curative petitions. The Court noted significant systemic failures, including the improper dismissal of juvenility claims despite corroborative evidence. It emphasized the retrospective applicability of juvenile laws and their rehabilitative nature.
Ultimately, Om Prakash’s death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the President of India, with a stipulation that he serve until 60 years of age. This case reflects the judiciary’s evolving understanding and application of juvenile justice in India. The judgment traverses legislative frameworks from the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 to the more comprehensive Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, highlighting systemic lapses in adhering to procedural and rehabilitative principles. The Court addressed key constitutional provisions, such as Articles 14, 15(3), and 39(e)(f), emphasizing equality and protection for children, while also aligning with international commitments like the UNCRC and the Beijing Rules to uphold the best interests of juveniles.
Issues involved
This case involved several legal issues, including the retrospective application of juvenile justice laws, the evidentiary standards for determining juvenility, systemic lapses in judicial accountability and procedural compliance, the constitutional and human rights dimensions of juvenility protection, and the judicial interpretation of “any stage” under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court observed that these issues underscored the necessity of prioritizing substantive justice over procedural rigidity and reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of juveniles.
Observations made by court
The Supreme Court made detailed observations, addressing systemic failures and emphasizing substantive justice over procedural formalities. Let’s see the key observations made by the court:
- Judicial Duty and Truth Discovery: The Court reiterated its duty as a seeker of truth, emphasizing that justice must transcend procedural rigidity and be rooted in substantive fairness. Citing Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Court held that procedural formalities must not obstruct the discovery of truth, especially in cases involving juvenility, where the interests of justice demand sensitivity and fairness.
“The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth.” (Para 7 of the judgment)
2. Procedural Oversight: The Court criticized the trial and High Courts for dismissing the appellant’s juvenility claim based on irrelevant considerations, such as the possession of a bank account, which had no bearing on the appellant’s age. This reflected systemic negligence and a lack of adherence to procedural safeguards under juvenile laws. Referring to A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602, the Court emphasized that judicial errors must be rectified to prevent miscarriages of justice.
“one of the first and highest duties of all courts is to take care that the act of the court does no injury to any of the suitors, and when the expression ‘the act of the court’ is used, it does not mean merely the act of the primary court, or of any intermediate court of appeal, but the act of the court as a whole, from the lowest court which entertains jurisdiction over the matter up to the highest court which finally disposes of the case. It is the duty of the aggregate of those Tribunals, if I may use the expression, to take care that no act of the court in the course of the whole of the proceedings does an injury to the suitors in the court.” (Para 28 of the judgment)
3. Evidentiary Standards: The Supreme Court affirmed the evidentiary value of school certificates and ossification tests, underscoring their credibility in determining juvenility. The Court referenced Mohan Singh v. State of M.P., (1999) 2 SCC 428 and Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, (2012) 6 SCC 430 to stress the importance of evidence-based adjudication in ensuring that juvenility claims are adjudicated fairly and accurately.
“Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which courts are created. To search it out, the courts have been removing the chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit, to find out the truth….” (Para 7 of the judgment)
4. Section 9(2) Interpretation: An expansive reading of Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, was upheld, allowing juvenility claims to be raised “at any stage” of litigation, including post-conviction.
“We place emphasis on the words “even after the final disposal of the case” in Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act. As stated, this provision being the heart and soul of the entire Act, must be given its fullest meaning and interpretation. If the offence is committed by a child, it cannot be treated otherwise than as provided under the 2015 Act” (Para 21 of the judgment)
5. Constitutional Mandates: The judgment emphasized Articles 14, 15(3), and 39(e)(f) of the Constitution, highlighting the State’s obligation to protect children and ensure their welfare. Aligning with international commitments, such as the UNCRC, the Court underscored that laws concerning juveniles must prioritize their rehabilitation and reintegration into society rather than punitive measures.
“a child who lives in such a discriminatory environment, requires equitable treatment on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”). Article 15(3) read with Article 39 (e) and (f), Article 45 and Article 47 of the Constitution, in the form of the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, emphasise on the need for special care for children” (Para 9 of the judgment)
Significance of the Judgment
From a Human Rights Perspective: The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role as a guardian of vulnerable groups, particularly juveniles, through the application of the doctrine of parens patriae. This principle, which empowers the State to act as a protector of those who cannot protect themselves, was reinforced with references to past judgments such as Sheela Barse v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 596, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for humane treatment of juveniles. It also aligns with Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161, reiterating the State’s obligation to ensure the welfare of children under constitutional mandates like Articles 15(3) and 39(e)(f).
By affirming parens patriae, the judgment highlights the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration rather than retribution for juveniles. The Supreme Court emphasized that juvenility claims should never be dismissed lightly, and procedural safeguards must be strictly adhered to, ensuring that children’s rights are protected at all stages of litigation. Additionally, the judgment aligns with India’s international commitments, including:
- United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): Emphasizing the rehabilitative approach and the best interests of the child.
- Beijing Rules (United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice): Highlighting procedural safeguards and the need for diversionary measures.
- Havana Rules (United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty): Ensuring the humane treatment of juveniles in custody and prioritizing their reintegration into society.
- Riyadh Guidelines (United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency): Stressing preventive strategies and community-based rehabilitation.
Jurisprudential Impact: The case reinforces key constitutional mandates, including Articles 14, 15(3), and 39(e)(f), which stress equality and protection for children. It also establishes a robust precedent for interpreting Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. By permitting juvenility claims at any stage of litigation, the Court has created an inclusive framework for justice that prioritizes substantive fairness over procedural finality. This decision strengthens the judiciary’s role in ensuring that juvenility claims are treated with the seriousness they deserve and rectifies historical procedural oversights, setting a higher standard for future litigation involving juveniles.
Future Applicability
The uniqueness this case lies in its broad interpretation of Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, allowing juvenility claims to be raised at any stage of litigation, even post-conviction. This sets an unprecedented benchmark, ensuring that procedural lapses or systemic negligence do not prevent the assertion of juveniles’ rights. The judgment firmly establishes that substantive justice must override procedural rigidity, especially in cases involving vulnerable groups such as children.
In practical terms, this case can guide the reopening of past cases where juvenility claims were dismissed based on procedural technicalities rather than substantive evidence. It underscores the judiciary’s role in rectifying miscarriages of justice by allowing the re-evaluation of such claims, particularly when supported by credible documentation like school certificates or medical examinations.
The judgment reinforces the principle of rehabilitation over retribution, encouraging courts and policymakers to prioritize the welfare and reintegration of juveniles into society. This aligns with constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 15(3), and 39(e)(f), as well as international frameworks like the UNCRC. Future judicial and administrative practices can draw from this case to improve the verification and adjudication of juvenility claims at the earliest stages of litigation, thereby reducing systemic delays and ensuring procedural fairness.
Human rights activism in the field of juvenile justice
The judgment in Om Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand can significantly impact human rights activism in the juvenile justice domain by addressing the gaps highlighted in the literature on systemic failures and procedural inadequacies. As emphasized in the article titled Analysis of India’s Flawed Juvenile Justice Labyrinth, the current system struggles with delays in verifying juvenility and a lack of uniform implementation of protective measures. This judgment’s broad interpretation of Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, allowing claims of juvenility to be raised at any stage, provides a blueprint for rectifying these issues. The judgment aligns with the call for adherence to international conventions such as the UNCRC and Beijing Rules, as discussed in the article titled Juvenile Justice and Human Rights. It emphasizes rehabilitation over retribution, an approach crucial for reforming the systemic lapses as given in the article titled Analysis of Juvenile Justice System in India. Activists can use this ruling to advocate for robust procedural safeguards, such as mandatory training for law enforcement and juvenile justice boards, and push for increased accountability in cases of judicial oversight. Furthermore, the case strengthens arguments for legislative reforms to address gaps in evaluation of evidence, ensuring juveniles are not denied justice due to technicalities. This judgment, by bridging international human rights norms and domestic legal principles, provides a strong foundation for creating a juvenile-centric justice system that emphasizes fairness, dignity, and rehabilitation.
The Judgment in this case, Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024, delivered by the bench of MM Sundresh J and Aravind Kumar J on January 8, 2025 may be read here:
(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)
Related:
Detention of Children in Kashmir: Enakshi Ganguly shoots down Juvenile Justice Committee’s report
Investigate illegal detention of children in J&K: SC
