Menu

CASE NAME – Om Prakash V Union of India

Case Comment, Publications

CITATION – MANU/SC/0041/2025

CORAM – Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Arvind Kumar

DECIDED ON – January 8, 2025

INTRODUCTION –

The Supreme Court of India delivered the judgement on January 8, 2025 which is built on the basic principles of juvenile justice. This case commentary brings out the intricate details of the ruling which pointed out the faults in the judicial system in carrying out justice with the plea concerning the juvenile criminals. The judgement showcased how the procedural issues should not hamper the discovery of the facts especially the legislations which are related to the welfare of the society, like Juvenile Justice Act.

The Supreme Court of India presented a firm stance of its power granted under the doctrine of parens patriae and demonstrated a modern approach. This confirms the betterment of the children who have committed any type of crimes. The court also presented firm stance over the application of such legislation retrospectively. The case uplifts the bar for the justice in the juvenile cases.

CASE SUMMARY (FACTS) –

An incident of murder took place in 1994 where Om Prakash faced charges of culpable homicide amounting to murder. In his trial statement, Om Prakash revealed his age to be twenty years, therefore the court tried him as an adult and sentenced him death penalty. After the pronouncement of the sentence for the said offence, he presented the plea of juvenility wherein he claimed his age to be seventeen years instead of twenty and pleaded to be tried accordingly. The trial court, on the basis of the existing evidence and documents deny to accept him as minor and sticked to the death sentence for Om Prakash.

The High court upheld the trial court’s decision. Om Prakash presented his school certificates and other documents to proof his minority but the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s and High Court’s decision. He exhausted all his remedies after conviction, that were, writ petition and curative petition but they were all dismissed by the court. The presidential order reduced his death sentence to imprisonment till the age of sixty. 

 Om Prakash once again filed a plea under section 9(2) of Juvenile Justice Act in High court and then in Supreme Court where it was accepted.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS –

The case primarily involves the provision of the Juvenile Justice Act and Constitution’s mandatory provisions. The provisions that are included are-

  1. Section 7A (2000 Act) – This section was introduced in the amendment and this section of the act permits anyone to raise the concerns related to juvenility at any stage of the case. This can be even post dismissal of the case. The intent of this particular section is to protect the juvenile criminals from the excessive punishment and to punish them in proportion and accordance of their crime.
  2. Section 9 (2) (2015 Act) – this section of the act makes it necessary for the court to investigate the claims regarding the juvenility raised by the person. The courts have to necessarily treat the person as a juvenile in case he/she is proved to be one. This provision is pari matria to section 7 A of the 2000 act.
  3. Section 20 – This is a rule for the pending cases and it makes it allows the application of juvenile justice laws to the cases that commenced before the legislation came into being. The law can be applied even if the accused or the offender has crossed the minority stage when the it was enforced, that is, it can be applied retrospectively.
  4. Section 2(k) and section 2 (l) – These two sections give the definition of “juvenile” and “child” as “a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years.” 
  5. Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules – This rule gives a proper and a particular procedure to find out the age of the person via a hierarchy of documents and certificates. The supreme court applied the rule retrospectively, that is, to the cases where this was not applied.
  6. Section 32 – This section of the act makes it compulsory for the concerned entity or body to investigate the age of the concerned person and record the findings.
  7. Article 19 of the Constitution – It guarantee equality to everyone and grants equal protection of the laws. This supports the equal and fair treatment to the minors in such discriminatory environment.
  8. Article 15(3) of Constitution – It permits the government to make favourable and necessary provisions for children and women.
  9. Article 32 of the Constitution – It “grants every individual the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This means that if someone believes their fundamental rights have been violated, they can approach the Supreme Court directly for relief.”
CONTENTIONS BY BOTH THE PARTIES –
Appellant’s Contention –
  1. The appellant claimed that he was a minor at the time when the offence was committed by him.
  2. Both High Court and trial court refused to take into account the school certificates and even the ossification certificate that supported his claim of being a minor at the time of occurrence of the crime.
Respondent’s contention –
  • The respondents contended that the case was already decided and settled by the judges of the trial court and High court. It was contended that the case was reviewed via appeal, curated petitions, therefore the principle of finality should be respected.
  • They argued that Om Prakash, the appellant, had been considered an adult according to his statement and the bank accounts.
ISSUES RAISED –
  • Whether the trial court and high court had a right approach in treating the plea regarding the plea of juvenility a per the law?
  • Whether the procedural finality can hamper the court to serve the justice by acknowledging and recognizing the rights of the juvenile retroactively.
RATIO DECIDENDI –

The court concluded that both the courts made an error in treating the plea by rejecting it. They did not properly check the documents and the evidences that were further presented by the person, especially the ossification test that was presented. The supreme court took a strong stance that the juvenility claims can be tried at any stage even after the disposal of the case or even if the person who has raised the concerns over the juvenility and was the accused has completed the age eighteen when the case was again reviewed or tried. This was in accordance to the juvenile justice act 2015.

The supreme court also ruled that the procedural finality cannot hamper the court to serve the justice by acknowledging and recognizing the rights of the juvenile retroactively.

DEFECTS OF LAW –
  • The rule 12 as mentioned earlier gives a proper and a particular procedure to find out the age of the person via a hierarchy of documents and certificates and according to this bank documents hold no admissibility. Rather school certificates and ossification are more reliable evidence for the appellant’s minority.
  • The court has the power and duty of parens patriae, according to which they failed to dig out the truth in cases of minors. The trial and High court dismissed the appeals and review petition, thus violating the Section 7A or Section (9)2. 
  • There was a need for the binding procedural guidelines or protocols to determine the age in case of claims of juvenility. This led to arbitrary decisions and a huge delay. The Supreme court just repeated the mistake and simultaneously missed an opportunity to lay down clear, binding protocols for lower courts for age determination. This may lead to errors in future cases.
RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE IN FIELD OF LAW –
  1. The case strengthened the base of the juvenile rights as the case confirms that the said legislation is not just a formality that can be negotiated but a substantive thing from a lens of granting juvenile justice. 
  2. The case broadened the meaning of the ‘at any stage’ by allowing Om Prakash to file a plea under the relevant section of the legislation under article 226 of the Constitution. The act includes the ‘post curative and post-mercy proceedings’. In my opinion this provides a remedy to the people who were wrongfully convicted as juveniles.
  3.  The court recapitulated that when there is a matter dealing with minors, the court acts as parens patriae, that is, a guardian, to safeguard the minors and do what is best in their favour but still serving justice.
  4. Article 72 and article 161 of the constitution gives executive clemency which cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. But the case confirmed that the court still has to inquire the important legal question pertaining to the juvenility of the person at the time of the occurrence of the crime, irrespective of the fact that a presidential order has been passed or not. Therefore, section 9 (2) of the act and the decision of clemency are not mutually exclusive.
  5. The court gave preference to the hierarchy of the documents as laid down in the rule 12 of the act and in those documents, the documents by the schools will be given be given preference to determine the age of the person or juvenile. The documents considered by the trial court, that is, the bank documents were called irrelevant.
  6. Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit doctrine – The case laid down that the no person should suffer due to the errors of the court or delay in procedural finality. 
INFERENCE –

In my opinion, the case successfully shows the prevailing of the substantive justice over the procedural mistakes and errors by the courts. This case highlights that the courts should not just blindly stick to just previous or old or outdated interpretation of the laws or to the literal interpretation of the legislation but should use their judicial minds to reach the conclusion to grant justice. They should not be bound by the procedural finality or delays. 

The case of Om Prakash has gone far beyond just the technicalities pertaining to determination of the age of the juvenile. It is also about the delay and consequences that the person has to go through at a minor age. It took almost 30 years, several petitions and a presidential order to grant a relief. The court, though after a long wait, but took the case with right approach. It was not rigid and let the fairness win over the finality if the case. It set off an example to deal with the juvenile cases. 

The delay caused was unreasonable as the trial court could have avoided this by considering the latest evidences submitted by Om Prakash.

I believe, the court could have been fairer by fixing the strict standards and procedure to deal with the age determination problem at the lower court, specially where the cases related to death sentence are concerned. The court had an opportunity to provide a set of guidelines or rules to deal with this issue which would be binding on the future cases similar to this one.

Apart from this, I believe the court’s decision was right, strong and stood on firm legal grounds that were completely fair. It did not neglect the modern approach by following a punitive approach. But the delayed justice in this case could have been justice denied. That is a substantive factor that could have undermine the natural law of justice.

CONCLUSION –

The case is used as a precedent to determine the juvenility of the accused. It allows the application of the juvenile justice act and rules retrospectively giving the courts a progressive approach to deal with a case concerning the minors. The case presents a reformative approach.

Name- Toshant
College – Geeta Institute of Law