Direction issued to Parliament to amend Juvenile Justice Act
- shrey singh
- Jan 10, 2020
- 4 min read
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2020 decided on January 09, 2020.
2 Judges Bench
Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Facts
A juvenile ‘X’ is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) which offence is punishable with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life or up to 10 years and fine in the first part and imprisonment up to 10 years or fine, or both in the second part.No minimum sentence is prescribed.
Question of law
Whether an offence prescribing a maximum sentence of more than 7 years imprisonment but not providing any minimum sentence, or providing a minimum sentence of less than 7 years, can be considered to be a ‘heinous offence’ within the meaning of Section 2(33) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?
Argument Advanced
Appellant
Respondent
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the juvenile ‘X’ submitted that this Court cannot rewrite the law. He further submits that the intention of the Legislature cannot be deciphered by this Court only on the ground that a category of offences have been left out. If there is a lacuna in the scheme of the Act it is for the Legislature to correct the lacuna and this Court cannot step in.
Mr. Siddharth Luthra argued that if the definitions of offences, i.e., petty, serious and heinous are read literally then there is one category of offences which is not covered by the Act of 2015.
He submits that petty offences are those offences where the punishment is up to 3 years, serious offences are those where the maximum punishment is of 7 years and as far as heinous offences are concerned, if the definition is read literally, then these are only those offences which provide a minimum sentence of 7 years and above.
He further submits that this leaves out a host of offences falling within the 4th category. The 4th category of offences are those where the minimum sentence is less than 7 years, or there is no minimum sentence prescribed but the maximum sentence is more than 7 years.
He submits that it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to leave out these offences and they should have been in some category at least.
The submission of Mr. Luthra is that if from the definition of ‘heinous offences’, the word‘minimum’ is removed then all offences other than petty and serious would fall under the heading of ‘heinous offences’. He submits that if the 4th category of offences is left out it would result in an absurdity which could not have been the intention of the Legislature. He further submits that applying the doctrine of surplusage, if the word ‘minimum’ is removed then everything will fall into place.
Held
The Court, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, held direct that from the date when the Act of 2015 came into force, all children who have committed offences falling in the 4th category shall be dealt with in the same manner as children who have committed ‘serious offences’.
Reasoning
Regarding interpretation of statute
The Court said that while interpreting an Act one must see what is the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act of 2015 is to ensure that children who come in conflict with law are dealt with separately and not like adults. The intention of the Legislature was to include all offences having a punishment of more than 7 years in the category of ‘heinous offences’ would not be justified when the language of the section is clear and it prescribes a minimum sentence of 7 years imprisonment while dealing with heinous offences then the interpretation cannot wish away the word ‘minimum’ .
Regarding 4th category of offence
The legislation does not take into consideration the 4th category of offences. How and in what manner a juvenile who commits such offences should be dealt with was something that the Legislature should have clearly spelt out in the Act. There is an unfortunate gap. The court cannot fill the gap by saying that these offences should be treated as heinous offences. Whereas on the one hand there are some offences in this category which may in general parlance be termed as heinous, there are many other offences which cannot be called as heinous offences. It is not for this Court to legislate. The Court may fill in the gaps but we cannot enact a legislation, especially when the Legislature itself has enacted one. The Court said that have to keep in mind the fact that the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that children should be protected. Treating children as adults is an exception to the rule.
DIRECTION TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
The Court issued a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary Law, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India and the Secretary, Home, Ministry of Home Affairs, and Registrar General, Delhi High Court, who shall ensure that the issue raised in this judgment is addressed by the Parliament as early as possible or by the Executive by issuing an Ordinance. The directions of the Court that from the date when the act of 2015 came into force, all children who have committed offences falling in the 4th category shall be dealt with in the same manner as children who have committed ‘serious offences’ shall continue to remain in force only till such action is taken.
Comentários