OM PRAKASH @ ISRAEL @ RAJU
@ RAJU DAS …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
| CITATION | 2025 INSC 43 |
| BENCH | Justice M.M. Sundresh Justice Aravind Kumar |
| JUDGEMENT | January 8, 2025 |
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT | Dr. S. Muralidhar, Senior Advocate |
| COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS | Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Advocate |
FACTS:
In this case, Om Prakash, who is a poor, illiterate boy, was arrested for committing the offence of murder on November 15, 1994. At the time of the incident, his actual age was 14 years according to the school records and medical tests. however, during the trial, in Session Court recorded his age as 20 years.
He was convicted and sentenced to death by the Session Court. This sentence was subsequently upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. In 2015, the President of India commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, ordering that he remain in prison until the age of 60.
Throughout the judicial process, including during trial, appeals, review, and curative petitions, the accused constantly raised claim about his juvenility. He also presented documents and medical evidence for the same. Despite these repeated claims, no proper inquiry was conducted for his age verification, as required under section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, “JJ Act, 2015”.
The documents, including school admission register and transfer certificate, as well as the official ossification test conducted in 2018, all indicating that Om Prakash was a juvenile at time of offence. The school records and certificates were officially verified by the relevant education authorities.
After all previous remedies had failed, a fresh writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court. The appellant requested a formal recognition of his juvenility at the time of offence and sought relief under juvenile justice laws, since he had already spent more than 25 years in incarceration.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the consistent plea of juvenility can be recognised and adjudicated upon under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015[1] even after final judicial disposal of the criminal appeal and curative petition.
- Whether the denial of due inquiry regarding the accused’s age, despite documentary and medical evidence, nullifies the validity of the sentence imposed.
- Whether the Presidential Order commuting a death sentence precludes judicial review regarding failure to consider a statutory plea of juvenility.
- What is the obligation of the courts and investigation agencies when repeated claims of juvenility, backed by material evidence, are presented at different stages of the proceedings.
CONTENTIONS:
Appellants- the petitioner, through learned Senior Council Dr. S Muralidhar, held that the courts and investigating agencies failed to conduct a proper inquiry into his age, as required by law. It was argued that the plea of juvenility was consistently raised at every stage, but never adjudicated as per section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015. In Ram Narain v. State of UP[2], Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan[3] The Supreme Court confirmed that a claim of juveniles can be raised at any stage, even after the matter has reached finality. The petitioner highlighted uncontested documentary (school and transfer certificates) and medical (ossification test) evidence that established his minority. At last, it is pleaded that the appellant is given more than 25 years of incarceration and Loss of formative years. the appellant sought rehabilitation and compensation for wrongful detention.
Respondents- The Additional Solicitor General argued that the matter had attained judicial finality; all pleas, including juvenility, had been previously considered and rejected. He argued that the government claimed the presidential order under Article 72 of the Constitution further closed the matter. They arguing for stricter evidentiary standards and maintaining that ossification tests and school certificates were insufficient and cannot disturb settled findings.
RATIONALE:
The Supreme Court set aside the sentence and ordered Om Prakash’s immediate release. The analysis not only considered statutory mandates but also revisited the philosophy and obligations underlying juvenile justice.
Juvenility Can Be Raised at Any Stage:
Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 allows the claim of juvenility to be raised “before any court and… at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.” The Court decisively rejected “finality” arguments, holding that the gravity of a court’s duty within a social welfare framework overrides procedural closure. Same id done in this case, as in this case held is not final, as the plea has not been duly considered and determined in compliance with the law, so the Supreme overrides the prior order as right subsists as per the Act.
Purposive, Beneficial Interpretation:
The decision rooted itself in the constitutional mandate to protect children, invoking Article 15(3), Article 39(e) & (f), Article 45, and Article 47 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized its significant role in highlighting the transformative, reformative, and rehabilitative purpose of juvenile justice laws. It cited both Indian and international instruments, recalling that children are inherently vulnerable products of their socio-economic backgrounds and must be treated not merely as delinquents but as victims deserving reform and reintegration.
Procedural Duties of Courts:
Judges, the Court reiterated, are not passive umpires. When substantial evidence of juvenility is presented, like documentary and medical sources as in this case, the duty is to actively seek the truth and not permit technicalities or procedural obstacles to defeat the statutory protections intended for juveniles.
Judicial Review of the Presidential Order:
The Court made a clear distinction between reviewing an executive mercy order and correcting a judicial omission of a statutory right. The commutation had no bearing on the individual’s statutory right to seek recognition of his juvenile status.
Rehabilitation and the Role of the State:
Recognizing the irreversible deprivation caused by years of unjust imprisonment, the Supreme Court directed the State Legal Services Authority to proactively facilitate Om Prakash’s rehabilitation and reintegration, including participation in welfare schemes for shelter, livelihood, and sustenance.
DEFECT OF LAW:
Despite the Supreme Court’s timely intervention in correcting a grave injustice, the case also highlights several deeper defects in the legal system when it comes to protecting juveniles:
Failure of the System at All Levels:
Om Prakash repeatedly claimed that he was a minor when the crime occurred, but his claim was ignored by police, prosecutors, trial courts, appellate courts, and even during curative and review petitions. This shows a failure of the legal process, where a child’s legal rights were overlooked for years. It raises serious concerns about how the system treats vulnerable individuals, especially those without resources or proper legal support.
No Timely Inquiry into Age:
The law clearly states that a person’s claim of being a juvenile must be investigated with care, regardless of when it is raised. Yet, in this case, in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, no proper or timely inquiry ever took place. If it is done, he may never have been sentenced like an adult or spent decades behind bars.
Strict View Toward Evidence Without Sensitivity:
Even though school records and a medical test supported his claim of being a minor, various courts earlier failed to give them the consideration they deserved. Courts often expect perfect documents, ignoring the fact that children from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have access to flawless records. The lack of sensitivity in assessing such evidence affected the outcome for years.
No Compensation for Lost Years:
Even after acknowledging that Om Prakash was wrongly treated as an adult for over 25 years, the Court did not award any compensation for the time he unjustly spent in prison. There is currently no clear legal mechanism to hold authorities accountable or to compensate such individuals, leaving victims with no real remedy for such a serious injury to their life and liberty.
Unclear Relationship Between Judicial Errors and Executive Orders:
The case involved a Presidential order commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment. While the Court clarified that such orders don’t prevent correction of judicial errors, it also showed how easily executive decisions can become a barrier to justice, especially when they don’t consider statutory protections like juvenility. This area of law still lacks clarity and may create further confusion in similar cases.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court’s decision in Om Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand is more than just a legal correction; it proved to be a reminder of the human cost when justice is delayed or denied. For over 25 years, Om Prakash lived behind bars, treated as an adult criminal, when in fact, he was legally a child at the time of the offence. Despite raising his claim of juvenility several times, his voice was ignored at every stage of proceedings.
This case exposes how even a strong legal framework like the Juvenile Justice Act can fail when those responsible for upholding it do not act with the care and sensitivity that the law requires. The judgment importantly reaffirms that a child’s right to be treated differently from an adult under the law cannot be taken away just because a case has reached a “final” stage.
Nevertheless, while the Court deserves credit for stepping in and finally recognizing the miscarriage of justice, the lack of compensation or formal apology highlights the need for a stronger focus on rehabilitation and accountability. Om Prakash lost not just his youth but a significant lifetime that the law can never give back.
In the end, the case is a powerful lesson on the importance of listening with care, especially when it is a child who is asking to be heard. It reinforces that justice is not only about punishment or procedure but also about compassion, dignity, and the willingness to correct mistakes — no matter how late.
Toshant
Geeta Institute of Law, Panipat
[2] Ram Narain v. State of U.P. (2015) 17 SCC 699 (India
[3] Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211 (India)