Supreme Court’s Contribution to Juvenile Justice By Karmanpreet kaur*

Crimes by children in recent times have risen significantly. Children are often used as instruments to perform unlawful and illegal acts. The criminality of these acts branches from deep-rooted psychological dilemmas and conflicts. The minds of the children possess an innocent and manipulative character that can be easily tampered. The Children’s Act of 1960, and the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986, 2000 and 2015 have aimed to give effect to the international concern that juveniles should be dealt with leniency, prioritising aspects like rehabilitation, treatment, and development of the child. The Supreme Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki versus State of UP and others 2019 12 SC 370, summarised the principal relating to the determination of the claim of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. The apex court held that the claim for juvenility can be made at any stage of the criminal proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board or the court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has delivered a catena of judgments on the subject of Juvenile Justice and Child Rights, interpreting and moulding the law of the land in favour of the Children in Conflict with Law. In the last few decades, juveniles are found to be involved in grave offences. The frightful incident of Nirbhaya, the Delhi gang rape case, involved a juvenile who was merely six months short of the age of 18 years. The involvement of the said accused in such a heinous crime compelled the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 with some remarkable changes, one of them being that the juvenile in the age group of 16 to 18 years shall be tried as an adult. It has received large criticism on the ground of being violative of article 14 of the Constitution. To ensure the protection of article 14 the act provides for intelligible differentia to distinguish the liability arising on grounds of the nature of the offence. However, it is pertinent to mention that the victim too is entitled to the Right to Justice being inherent to the Right to Life. The previous acts provided blanket immunity to juvenile offenders. In Boddhisatwa Gautam versus Subhra Chakraboty (1996) 1 SCC 490; the offence of rape was held to be a violation of the Right to Life. In Salil Bali versus Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705; it was contested that where a juvenile is capable of committing rape or murder, it is against the principle of justice to provide blanket immunity. Hence, the present act has brought a significant revolution in the juvenile justice system aided by constant interpretation of the laws by the courts.

 *Student of B.A.LL.B (Hons.), Panjab University, Regional Centre , Hoshiarpur