The Pursuit of Justice and Juvenility

An Analysis of Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju vs. Union of India & Anr.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in this landmark judgment, addressed the deeply significant issue of juvenility and the judicial system’s role in safeguarding the rights of children. The case of Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju vs. Union of India & Anr. brings into focus the failures of the judicial machinery in recognizing and acting upon the appellant’s plea of juvenility at various stages of the proceedings. The judgment is a testament to the Court’s commitment to unearthing the truth and ensuring justice.

Case Background

The appellant, Om Prakash, was convicted for culpable homicide amounting to murder, an offense committed on November 15, 1994. At the time of the incident, Om Prakash claimed he was 14 years old, but this assertion was overlooked during the initial trial. The appellant’s plea of juvenility was rejected by the trial court and the High Court, both relying on a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in which the appellant had mentioned his age as 20 years in 2001.

Despite presenting a birth certificate and an ossification test report, which confirmed that he was a minor at the time of the offense, the plea of juvenility was repeatedly dismissed by various courts, including the Supreme Court, during prior appeals and petitions. The appellant endured solitary confinement and was sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by a Presidential Order in 2012 with the stipulation that he would not be released until the age of 60.

Observations by the Supreme Court

The judgment delivered by Justice M. M. Sundresh highlighted several crucial observations:

1. Duty to Unearth Truth
   Justice Sundresh emphasized the judiciary’s role as a “search engine of truth.” Referring to V.R. Krishna Iyer’s observations, the judgment stated, “Justice is truth, is beauty, and the strategy of healing injustice is the discovery of the whole truth.”
2. Failures in Judicial Process
   The Court noted that the appellant’s plea of juvenility was dismissed at every stage without due inquiry. It criticized the reliance on procedural technicalities, such as the appellant’s alleged statement under Section 313 CrPC, despite evidence of his illiteracy and the validity of his birth certificate.
3. Juvenile Justice and Parens Patriae
   The judgment underscored the constitutional mandate to treat juveniles as victims needing care and protection. Quoting the doctrine of parens patriae, the Court remarked, “A juvenile court must forget that it is acting as a court and must don the robes of a correction home for a deviant child.”
4. Retrospective Application of Juvenile Laws
   Justice Sundresh clarified that Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, allows claims of juvenility to be raised at any stage, including after the final disposal of a case.
5. Judicial Responsibility
   Addressing the role of the judiciary, the Court remarked, “The judiciary must travel an extra mile to ensure justice, especially in cases involving juveniles.”

Proceedings and Commentary

The judgment referenced several significant judicial comments and principles:

1. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer on Truth and Justice
   The Court quoted Justice Iyer’s words, “Truth is holistic, and half-truths are noise. Justice is not about litigative solutions but the discovery of truth.”
2. Lord Atkin’s Wisdom on Justice
   Referring to United Australia Ltd. v. Barclays Bank Ltd., the Court invoked, “When these ghosts of the past stand in the path of justice clanking their medieval chains, the proper course for the judge is to pass through them undeterred.”
3. Constitutional Obligations
   Highlighting the importance of social welfare legislation, the Court reiterated that the judiciary must act in accordance with the principles of equity and the Constitution.
4. Failures of Procedural Justice
   The judgment criticized the trial court and High Court for their reliance on superficial reasoning, such as the appellant’s alleged ability to open a bank account.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Recognition of Juvenility
   The Court ruled unequivocally that Om Prakash was a juvenile at the time of the offense, based on documentary evidence and medical reports.
2. Release and Compensation
   The Court ordered the appellant’s immediate release and directed the State to consider adequate compensation for the years spent in incarceration.
3. Judicial Accountability
   The judgment serves as a reminder for courts to prioritize truth and justice over procedural technicalities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a watershed moment in the application of juvenile justice laws. By addressing systemic failures and reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of juveniles, the judgment reiterates the importance of justice rooted in truth and fairness.

References

1. Supreme Court of India, Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju vs. Union of India & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024.
2. Articles 14, 15(3), 39(e) & (f), 45 of the Constitution of India.
3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 & 2015.
4. Judicial Observations:
   • V.R. Krishna Iyer, American Judges Association Conference, 1979.
   • United Australia Ltd. v. Barclays Bank Ltd., [1941] AC 1.