⚠️ DISCLAIMER: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for specific legal guidance. The information provided is based on judicial interpretation and may be subject to changes in law.
If a person commits a crime as a child but is tried and convicted as an adult under an old law, can they be released as a juvenile decades later under a newer, more protective law?
Yes, they can and must be released.
The Supreme Court has firmly ruled that the beneficial provisions of a newer juvenile justice law can be applied retrospectively. If it is proven that a person was a minor (below 18 years) at the time of the crime, they are entitled to the protection of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, even if the crime was committed decades before this law existed.
This protection includes a limit on detention (a maximum of 3 years for serious offences), and any imprisonment beyond this limit is illegal.
The Court reinforced that laws meant to protect a vulnerable class, like children, are considered "beneficial legislation." Such laws must be interpreted liberally to extend their protection as widely as possible.
A crucial feature of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, is that it allows a claim of juvenility to be raised at any point in the legal process, even after all appeals are exhausted and the case is considered final.
The State argued that the convict should not be shown mercy because the crime was murder, a "heinous offence."
The juvenile justice law caps the period for which a child in conflict with the law can be detained in a special home.
The entire case hinges on proving the age at the time of the offence. Collect all possible documentary evidence, such as:
File a formal application before the concerned court (it could be the trial court, appellate court, or even the Supreme Court under its writ jurisdiction) raising the claim of juvenility.
If the person has already been in custody for a period longer than the maximum prescribed for juveniles (3 years for serious offences), argue that their continued detention is illegal. The primary prayer should be for immediate release.
Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised, regardless of how old the case is, the court is legally bound to conduct an inquiry to determine the age of the person at the time of the offence.
Once juvenility is established, the person must be treated as a juvenile for the entire process. The conviction by the adult court is set aside, and the case is sent to the Juvenile Justice Board to pass appropriate orders. Any sentence passed by the regular court is deemed to have no effect.
If the Supreme Court or any competent court orders the release of a person recognized as a juvenile, the prison authorities must act promptly to release the individual, as further detention is a violation of a fundamental right.
"The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000... permits raising of a plea of juvenility in any court at any stage... The courts are under an obligation to consider the plea of juvenility and to grant appropriate relief."
This judgment powerfully reaffirms that India's justice system places the welfare and reformation of children above all else. It establishes that the protective umbrella of juvenile justice is not bound by time.
It sends a clear message to the authorities: the state must correct its errors, even those made decades ago, when it comes to the rights of children. A legal system that seeks to do justice cannot ignore a person's status as a child at the time of an offence, no matter how much time has passed.