Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) addressed a critical issue surrounding the plea of juvenility, reaffirming that even if a plea had been previously raised and dismissed, it does not attain finality if it was not properly adjudicated upon. The appellant, Om Prakash, had been sentenced to death for a murder committed in 1994, but raised the plea of juvenility, claiming he was a minor at the time of the offence. Despite multiple rejections of his claim, including by the Supreme Court, the appellant raised the plea once more, this time producing new evidence in the form of a school certificate and the State’s admission that he was only 14 years old at the time of the crime. The Court, in its ruling, recognized that a proper adjudication of the juvenile plea had not been conducted in earlier rounds, thereby allowing the plea to be considered once again.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant’s counsel, Senior Advocate Dr S. Muralidhar, argued that the plea of juvenility had not been adjudicated properly in the previous rounds. He emphasized that the procedural requirements under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, had not been followed, and therefore, the appellant should be allowed to raise the plea again. Dr Muralidhar presented new evidence, including a school certificate and the State’s admission in a curative petition that Om Prakash was a minor at the time of the offence.

The State, represented by ASG KM Nataraj and Advocate Vanshaja Shukla, contended that the earlier rejection of the juvenility plea should stand, asserting that the courts had already considered the matter thoroughly. However, the State also reiterated that the appellant was 14 years old at the time of the offence, aligning with the information provided in the curative petition.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, held that a plea of juvenility, if not adjudicated properly earlier, cannot be treated as final. The Court observed that merely because the plea was dismissed in earlier rounds, it does not bar the appellant from raising the issue again. The judgment emphasized that the right to a fair hearing on such a significant plea remains, and the Court cannot overlook procedural failures in the previous adjudications.

Justice Sundresh, who authored the judgment, stated that the dismissal of the juvenile claim in earlier stages was not final due to the lack of due procedure. The Court pointed out that Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates a proper determination of juvenility, and failure to comply with this procedure invalidates previous decisions. The Court also clarified that even a curative petition or an earlier judgment dismissing the plea does not bar a competent court from revisiting the issue.

The Court also highlighted that juveniles involved in criminal activities should not be treated merely as delinquents but as victims of circumstances. It underscored the constitutional responsibility of the courts to treat juveniles with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

The judgment further emphasized that the plea of juvenility could be raised before any court, and it must be given due consideration in compliance with the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court clarified that the law applies to individuals who were minors at the time of the offence, regardless of whether they had reached the age of majority before the Act came into force. The Court allowed the plea to be revisited, directing the lower courts to consider the new evidence presented and determine the issue of juvenility by the law.