The Supreme Court while refusing to stop the release of juvenile convict in the December 16 gangrape case, lobbed the issue of juvenile justice back to Parliament for enacting a legislation.
A bench of Justices A.K. Goel and Uday Lalit made it clear that under the law existing as of today, a juvenile convict cannot be kept in a home beyond the period of three years. Even if the legislation is enacted it will not have retrospective effect but it is expected to serve as a deterrent to other juveniles who are in conflict with law.
In its appeal against the Delhi high court order dated December 18, the DCW in its appeal raised important questions of law, viz. whether a juvenile in conflict with law, who is found to have committed an offence and sent to special home by the Juvenile Justice Board, can be released on expiry of the period of stay ordered without ascertaining the factum of reformation that is necessary for his social re-integration Whether the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act which envisages reformation of the juvenile protected if the juvenile convict is released without accessing his mental state
The appeal said whether despite the mandate of Section 15/16 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 prescribing a period of three years a juvenile, should not be released unless the effect of the social reformation aspects have been assessed Whether the juvenile in conflict with the law who is scheduled to be released possesses a serious threat to women at particular and society at large Whether releasing the juvenile without even calling for an assessment of the reformation, if any, undergone by the respondent or his mental state is dangerous
It also raised a question as to when he can be released when there is serious apprehension considering the heinous nature of the crime committed by the respondent as well as his behaviour and attitude in special home confirmed by the government agencies that the respondent may continue to have criminal/perverse bent of mind which possess a serious threat to women in particular and society at large.
Contending that the convict should not be released without any condition imposed whatsoever as it would be dangerous to the society, the DCW sought quashing of the order and a direction to extend the custody of the convict beyond three years.
The DCW wanted the top court to ensure that the boy be kept in the observation home at least till his mental frame of mind and reformation is properly ascertained.
