Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. We have heard Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the first appellant appearing in person and also representing the other appellants as well as Dr. Aman Hingorani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) No.204 of 2013. We have also heard Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India and Shri A.J. Bhambhani, learned counsel appearing for the juvenile respondent No.1–Raju apart from the intervenors appearing in person or through their respective counsels.

13. Dr. Subramanian Swamy has, at the outset, clarified that he is neither challenging the provisions of Section 2(k) and 2(l) of the Act nor is he invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to strike down any other provision of the Act or for interference of the Court to reduce the minimum age of juveniles fixed under the Act as 18 years. What Dr. Swamy has contended is that having regard to the object behind the enactment, the Act has to be read down to understand that the true test of “juvenility” is not in the age but in the level of mental maturity of the offender. This, it is contended, would save the Act from unconstitutionality and also further its purpose. The Act is not intended to apply to serious or heinous crimes committed by a juvenile. The provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Penal Code have been placed to contend that while a child below 7 cannot be held to be criminally liable, the criminality of those between 7 and 12 years has to be judged by the level of their mental maturity. The same principle would apply to all children beyond 12 and upto 18 years also, it is contended. This is how the two statutes i.e. Indian Penal Code and the Act has to be harmoniously understood. The provisions of Section 1(4) of the Act which makes the provisions of the Act applicable to all cases of detention, prosecution and punishment of juveniles in conflict with law, to the exclusion of all other laws, would be unconstitutional if the Act is not read down. Specifically, Dr. Swamy contends that in that event the Act will offend Article 14 of the Constitution as all offenders below the age of 18 years irrespective of the degree/level of mental maturity and irrespective of the gravity of the crime committed would be treated at par. Such a blanket treatment of all offenders below the age of 18 committing any offence, regardless of the seriousness and depravity, is wholly impermissible under our constitutional scheme. The non-obstante provisions contained in Section 1(4) of the Act as well as the bar imposed by Section 7 on the jurisdiction of the criminal court to try juvenile offenders cannot apply to serious and heinous crime committed by juveniles who have reached the requisite degree of mental maturity, if the Act is to maintain its constitutionality. Reliance is also placed on Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra[1] to contend that the purport and effect of Section 1(4) of the Act must be understood in a limited manner.

49. On the above note we deem it appropriate to part with the cases by dismissing the appeal filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Others as well as the writ petition filed by the parents of the unfortunate victim of the crime.

...…………………………CJI.

[P. SATHASIVAM] .........………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI] …..........……………………J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] NEW DELHI, MARCH 28, 2014.