Supreme Court refuses Subramanian Swamy PIL on JJ Act; Sees no need to interfere with age of juvenility [Download Judgment]

The Supreme Court today refused to interfere with the age of juvenility in cases where juveniles are guilty of heinous crimes. In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Subramanian Swamy, a 3 judge Bench comprising Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh declined to read down the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act to account for the mental and intellectual capacity of a juvenile offender..The Court held that the provisions of the Act were in confirmity with the Constitutional mandate and international conventions and also observed that it was not necessary for a sovereign nation to be dictated by the laws of foreign jurisdictions. Holding that the categorisation of juveniles as a special class stood the test of Article 14, the Court held that it should “confine itself to the legality and not the necessity” of the laws.While Swamy had argued in person, Additional Solicitor Generals Siddharth Luthra and Rakesh Khanna had appeared for the Union government while advocate Aman Hingorani represented the parents of the Delhi gang rape victim. Senior Advocate Anup Bhambhani had appeared for the juvenile accused in the Delhi Gang rape..The matter had attracted much media attention after a petition was filed by the parents of the Delhi gang rape victim seeking criminal trial of the juvenile. Hearing this petition alongside the PIL, the Court refused the relief sought by the parents as well..Swamy in his petition had contended that irrespective of the age limit fixed in the definition of a “juvenile” under Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (Act), it should be accompanied by a qualifying remark that the mental and intellectual level of the person would also be taken into account while deciding the culpability of the juvenile. He had submitted that as per the preamble of the Act, the statute was enacted in consonance with the UN Convention on Rights of Child (UN Convention) but it failed to consider the “mental and intellectual maturity” of the child envisaged in the UN Convention due to poor drafting..Swamy had also relied on the example of the juvenile offender in the Delhi gang rape case to buttress his point. He had, therefore, prayed that in case of heinous crimes, there should be no hard and fast rule in deciding whether a person is a juvenile or not and that the court should rely on the doctrine of “casus omissus” and read into the law what the Parliament had intended; else it will be a breach of Article 14 as it would result in a blanket categorisation of all juveniles, regardless of their mental and intellectual maturity and the seriousness of the offence committed, in one homogenous group in spite of their striking dissimilarities. .The Court, however, held that,.“Reading down the provisions of a statute cannot be resorted to when the meaning thereof is plain and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear….In the present case there is no difficulty in understanding the clear and unambiguous meaning of the different provisions of the Act. There is no ambiguity, much less any uncertainty, in the language used to convey what the legislature had intended.All persons below the age of 18 are put in one class/group by the Act to provide a separate scheme of investigation, trial and punishment for offences committed by them. A class of persons is sought to be created who are treated differently. This is being done to further/effectuate the views of the international community which India has shared by being a signatory to the several conventions and treaties already referred to.”.The Supreme Court had earlier upheld the Constitutional validity of the JJ Act in the case of Salil Bali v. Union of India..Read the full judgment below.