Juvenile justice laws in India protect Children in Conflict with Law (CCLs) from being sentenced to the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole.1 Despite these protections in law, it is an unfortunate fact that CCLs who are aged 16-18 years and are tried as adults for heinous crimes, are still sentenced to life imprisonment without these provisions. This reality violates the principles of reformation and rehabilitation that are fundamental to juvenile justice in India.
The issues around sentencing juvenile offenders to life imprisonment are unique to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which was introduced as a response to the landmark Nirbhaya case. Under this law, Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs), the quasi-judicial bodies that first interact with juvenile offenders, are tasked with deciding whether a child aged 16-18 years who is accused of a heinous offence should be tried as an adult. This decision is based on a ‘Preliminary Assessment’ of the child’s mindset at the time of the alleged offence. If the JJB decides the child should be tried as a juvenile, the maximum punishment is limited to three years, regardless of the crime’s severity or the child’s age. Alternatively, if the JJB decides that the juvenile offender should be tried as an adult, the trial and punishment proceed according to regular adult criminal procedures in the Sessions Court (also known as the Special Court or Children’s Court)2.
And if after this trial concludes with the CCL being convicted by the Special (Children’s) Court, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) apply3. This means punishments corresponding to the severity of the offence can be given, similar to those for adult offenders. The important exceptions to this, as mentioned earlier, are the death penalty, and life imprisonment without the possibility of release4.
But too often CCLs find themselves practically sentenced without the possibility of an early release, due to the lack of clear guidelines when sentencing juvenile offenders as adults. Since the Act is relatively new and many trials are still ongoing, it is essential for the courts to thoroughly examine the propriety of sentences that can be awarded to CCLs.
Sentencing children to life imprisonment has far-reaching consequences. For example, one of our CCL clients Sameer5, who is nearly 24 years old, faces the possibility of a life sentence6. His trial began eight years ago, when he was a minor, around the time the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act came into force. Since he is now over 21, if he is awarded a life sentence, he will be sent to an adult jail rather than a juvenile facility. This means that Sameer will not get the full benefits of the reformation or rehabilitation that other CCLs get during and after the conclusion of the legal process. There will be no periodic evaluation to assess his progress and potential for reform, and his chances of premature release will be subject to the rules for adult prisoners, which are more stringent. In effect, Sameer will not receive the special concessions for premature release due to him as a juvenile offender, and child friendly and other protective provisions will cease to apply for him.
This demonstrates that despite seeming straightforward, this sentencing regime for juveniles has significant gaps. For example, in the case of juvenile offenders treated as adults and found guilty of offences punishable only by life imprisonment or the death penalty (e.g., under Sections 302 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), the Special (Children’s) Court is forced to sentence the child to life imprisonment, as awarding the death penalty is entirely prohibited under the law.
There are also cases where the trial and sentencing of a juvenile offender conclude after they have crossed the age of 21, as in Sameer’s case. In such situations, the 2015 Act lacks clear criteria to help the court measure the degree of the child’s reformation, and determine their eligibility for premature release from adult jail.
Moreover, the new law only allows for the evaluation or re-evaluation of the juvenile offender’s sentence until they turn 21. After this age, once transferred to an adult jail, juvenile offenders sentenced to life imprisonment can only apply for premature release through the procedures for adult offenders, typically after 14 to 20 years of incarceration7.
Recently, the Madras High Court, in the case of Rajkumar v. State through The Inspector of Police8, held that the 2015 Act only bars life sentences if they are without the possibility of release. With this observation, the High Court upheld the life sentence awarded to a juvenile offender by the Special (Children’s) Court, while explicitly stating that such punishment must allow for the possibility of premature release. However, no specific time limit for the child’s premature release was laid out. This means that the juvenile will be considered for premature release under the same terms and conditions applicable to adult life convicts, typically after 14 to 20 years of imprisonment.
It is worth considering that designating the age of 21 as the point at which reformative changes in a juvenile offender are evaluated once and for all is arguably unconstitutional. This is particularly the case since the 2015 Act does not provide a system for re-evaluating the child’s progress after they turn 21.
In this context, the only possibility of respite for a juvenile offender sentenced to life is for the court to qualify the life sentence by providing for periodic reassessments (e.g. annually) of the child’s psyche and reformative tendencies at the time of sentencing, even after the child has turned 21. The court may also specify a minimum period after which the juvenile offender can apply for premature release. It is important to recognise that the possibility of release for most individuals in adult jails is a distant dream, fraught with challenges. Establishing a distinct mechanism for juvenile offenders will ensure that the “reformative goal” of juvenile justice jurisprudence is met, and that no child is incarcerated for longer than they need to be. Sentencing guidelines could help clear the ambiguity currently surrounding the sentencing regime for juvenile offenders.
1. Section 21, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
2. The Sessions Court is also called (and indeed branded as) the “Children’s Court” or “Special Court” in keeping with the child friendly procedures & nomenclature prescribed under the 2015 Act.
3. Bharti Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 will be applicable going forward from July 1st, 2024
4. Section 21, 2015 Act.
5. A pseudonym is being used to protect the identity of the CCL in terms of the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015.
6. Section 364-A IPC.
7. Section 433-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Rule 1252, Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
8. Crl. A(MD)No.106 of 2021, judgement dated 06.01.2023.
________
