Summary
An offence carrying a maximum sentence above seven years but no minimum sentence, or a minimum below seven years, is not a heinous offence under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. To address the statutory gap, the Court directed under Article 142 that children accused of this category be treated as for serious offences from the Act’s commencement, until legislative or ordinance action.
Issues
- Whether offences carrying a maximum above seven years but no minimum of seven years qualify as heinous offences.
- How children accused of the omitted category should be dealt with pending legislative action.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(33), 2(45) and 2(54), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015The minimum punishment criterion for heinous offences could not be deleted to expand the category; the omitted class was directed to receive serious-offence treatment. (¶¶ 12, 25, 30, 33, 35, 36)
- Sections 14(5)(d)–(f), 15 and 19, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015The graduated inquiry and assessment scheme shows that even a heinous allegation does not automatically require adult trial. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 34)
Held
- The express word minimum in the definition of heinous offences cannot be treated as surplusage. Clear legislative intent to include the omitted category was not established, and courts cannot rewrite clear language to supply their preferred legislative scheme. (¶¶ 25, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Use of includes does not enlarge these complete offence definitions. The protective scheme makes adult treatment exceptional and requires the prescribed assessment even for a heinous allegation. (¶¶ 31, 33, 34)
- Exercising Article 142, the Court directed that, from commencement of the 2015 Act, children accused of offences with a maximum above seven years but no minimum or a minimum below seven years be dealt with as for serious offences until Parliament or the Executive acts as indicated. (¶¶ 35, 36, 38)
- The High Court was directed to remove the child’s name from its judgment because disclosure contravened the statutory protection of identity. (¶ 37)
Result
Appeal disposed of by answering the reference question in the negative and directing serious-offence treatment for the omitted category pending legislative or ordinance action. The High Court must remove the child’s name, and copies were directed to the specified governmental secretaries and the Delhi High Court Registrar General.