Juvenile Justice Act: The juvenile justice system is the most sophisticated and progressive legal landscape that embraces the holistic well-being of children. The prominent wisdom encapsulated in establishing juvenile justice priorities was caring for vulnerable children and rebellious deviant youth.
The prime focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate the deviant child and bring him back into the existing social order. To further meet the ends of justice, the courts have adopted the “doctrine of parens patriae” when adjudicating matters pertaining to children.
Riddle in the Juvenile Justice System
The conundrum over the efficiency of the juvenile justice system owes its existence to the difficulty in balancing the rights and responsibilities when the alleged accused and victim involved are both juveniles. On the other hand, in various instances, the crimes committed by juveniles are so gruesome that the possibility of rehabilitation is trivial.
Further, the psychological development of the juvenile is also a major consideration for the prosecution of the minor. The question of whether to prosecute a juvenile as a minor or an adult was discussed in detail in the historic case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Master Bholu.
Also read: Money Bill: All the times, Aadhaar was discussed in Supreme Court
Factual Backdrop: Ryan International School Murder Case
The instant case arose out of a gruesome murder of a class IInd student from the Ryan International School in Gurugram, Haryana. On September 8, 2017, the victim ‘referred to as Prince’ was found dead with his throat slit inside the restroom of the school. A bus conductor was initially apprehended and framed for murder. However, owing to media attention, the case was referred to CBI.
As a consequence, the accused, a class 11th student, was held by the top investigating agency for prosecution. Further, the identities of the two juveniles are not disclosed in accordance with the provisions of Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Therefore, the accused and victim are referred to as Bholu and Prince, respectively.
Also read: All the times, Aadhaar was discussed in Supreme Court
Conundrum over prosecution of Juvenile
The foremost issue at the time of the trail stage was whether to prosecute the minor accused as a juvenile or as an adult. The Juvenile Justice Board was bestowed with the responsibility for determining whether the accused would be tried as an adult or a juvenile.
The conundrum before the board was if the accused was tried as a juvenile, in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the accused can only be remanded to a rehabilitation facility and only after attainment of 21 years of age, can he be transferred to jail to complete the remaining sentence of punishment.
Further, in such a scenario, he cannot be sentenced with imprisonment for life or with death penalty. On the contrary, if the prosecution is carried out as an adult, he would be subjected to the provision of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereby, raising significant questions before the court for determination at the time of trail of the accused.
Also read: Swapnil Tiwari Vs Union of India: The case which began Live Proceedings
Dictum of the Apex Court
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath, observed that for the purpose of determining the prosecution of a juvenile as an adult, where the Juvenile Board does not comprise an expert member, the expression “may” in the proviso to Section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form, and the Board would be obliged to take the assistance of experienced psychologists, psychosocial workers, or other experts for this purpose.
However, if the Board comprises at least one such expert member who has been a practising professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board may take such assistance as may be considered proper by it, and in case the Board chooses not to take such assistance, it would be required of the Board to state specific reasons therefor.
Further, with respect to the neurobiological perspective, cognitive development, and behavioural attributes, the Bench held that it is all the more important an assessment to distinguish between the attributes of a child and an adult.
Also read: Right to be Forgotten is a fundamental right
The Bench opined that the ability to delay gratification, decision making, risk taking, impulsivity, judgment, etc. continues until the early 20s and therefore, cognitive maturation is a significant aspect of determining the prosecution of a juvenile as an adult.
The Bench disagreed with the finding of the Board and the Children’s Court that held that the mental capacity and the ability to understand the consequences of the offense were one and the same, that is to say that if the child had the mental capacity to commit the offense, then he automatically had the capacity to understand the consequences of the offense.
Therefore, the Apex Court held that for the purpose of preliminary assessment to try a juvenile as an adult, the JJB should mandatorily take assistance of psychologist/psycho-social workers.
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
Also Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uQft0eiVUI&t=59s