Shilpa Mittal
v.
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2020
Fact of the case
A juvenile ‘x’ who has committed an offence which is punishable under section 302 of IPC, punishment is prescribed maximum 10 years of imprisonment but not defined minimum imprisonment. No minimum sentence is prescribed in this offence.
The case is concerning the interpretation of certain provision of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act 2015).
The primary concern pertained to the designation of specific juvenile misdeeds as “heinous offenses” and the subsequent handling of young people who had run violation of the law in accordance with this classification.
The case started with a traffic collision involving a minor who drove recklessly and rashly, which resulted in someone’s death. Section 304(Part II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with culpable homicide that does not qualify as murder.
Issue
- Whether an offence prescribing a maximum sentence of more than 7 years imprisonment but not providing any minimum sentence, or providing a minimum sentence less than 7 years, can be considered to be a heinous offence within the meaning of section 2(33) of the juvenile justice (Care and Protection ) Act of 2015?
Petitioner’s Argument
- The petitioner argued that offenses like Section 34 (Part III) should be considered “serious offenses” rather than “heinous offenses” because they lack a minimum punishment.
- She contented that treating such offenses as heinous could lead to unfair treatment of juveniles, as they would be subjected to harsher legal consequences.
Respondent’s Argument
- The State argued that since Section 304 (Part II) prescribes a maximum sentence of up to 10 years, the offense should be treated as “heinous” under the JJ Act 2015, which would subject the juvenile to a more stringent legal process.
Judgement
Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose of the Supreme Court decided that the lack of a minimum term leaves a legal loophole in the way that such acts are classified. The Juvenile Justice Act outlines serious and heinous actions, but the court pointed out that it does not sufficiently address situations in which there is no minimum punishment but a maximum that is greater than seven years. The court determined that until Parliament closes this legislative vacuum, these should be considered serious violations.
The ruling stressed that treating minors as adults should be the exception rather than the rule and that classifying all crimes with substantial potential penalties as heinous without taking minimum sentencing guidelines into account is not supported by the current statutory framework.
Significance
The ruling made sense of how the JJ Act, 2015 classified offenses, especially those with maximum sentences exceeding seven years but no minimum obligatory penalty.
It guaranteed that minors implicated in these situations would follow the judicial procedure intended for “serious offenses” rather than being subjected to unnecessarily harsh legal treatment.
This case had a major impact on how juveniles in conflict with the law are treated in India, especially in cases involving offenses like culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
