SC rejects plea to stall juvenile rapist’s release
Judges say they can’t go beyond the law: no clause to detain him after sentence is served
The Supreme Court on Monday, while sharing citizens’ concerns, declined to interfere with the Delhi high court decision not to halt the release of the juvenile convicted in the December 16, 2012 Delhi gangrape case.
As the juvenile involved in the gangrape was around 17 at the time of the crime, he was sent to a juvenile home for three years. He is now 20, and after release Sunday, has been kept in the care of an NGO.
A vacation bench of Justices A. K. Goel and Uday Lalit observed: “There is nothing in the law now to keep him beyond three years. We cannot interpret the law ( Juvenile Justice Act) to curtail his freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution ( right to life and liberty) without legislative sanction.” Justice Lalit told senior counsel
Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the Delhi Commission for Women: “We share your concern, but we cannot go beyond the statute. We need a clear legislative sanction to keep
him in a home beyond three years.”
When additional solicitorgeneral Pinky Anand told the court the government supported DCW chairperson Swati Maliwal’s plea that the juvenile convict not be released till such time that he is reformed, the bench observed: “You are saying without the law backing you. Go first and make the law.”
Mr Krishnakumar brought to the judges’ notice that the Intelligence Bureau had given a report in a sealed cover to the Delhi high court that the respondent convict was completely un- remorseful and had been further radicalised by association with other juveniles in the special home and there was the possibility of his committing an offence. The court said it could act in accordance with the law, but not contrary to the law.
When counsel said there was no reformation programme, Justice Lalit asked: “Suppose reformation takes another seven or 10 years? Do we have to extend the period of his detention every now and then without any legislative sanction?”
Mr Krishnakumar referred to provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Delhi Juvenile Justice Rules to argue for an independent body to review the juvenile convict’s mental status and keep him under protective custody till he reforms and was not a threat to society. Justice Goel quipped: “Are you for rehabilitation of the child or for detention of the child?” Mr Krishnakumar quoted Rule 38 ( after care organisation), which allows for care and monitoring after release. The counsel pleaded that the convict need not be considered outside the realm of the law on release. This provision can be used for two years till he attains the age of 21,” he said.
However, Justice Goel noted that this clause was only available to juvenile convicts who had no place to go after release. “Sorry, you don’t have a case here,” Justice Lalit told the counsel, and dismissed the appeal.