Supreme Court dismisses pleas on fresh interpretation of term 'juvenile'

The victim's father had said that the August 31, 2013 verdict of the Juvenile Justice Board was not acceptable to the family and so they challenged the Act as there was no other authority which they could approach for such relief.  

He had sought a direction to declare as unconstitutional and void the JJA to the extent it puts a blanket ban on the power of the criminal courts to try a juvenile offender for offences committed under IPC.

His counsel had said “mental and intellectual maturity” of the juvenile involved in the December 16 gangrape has to be taken into account and should be put to trial like the four other accused who have been awarded death sentence.  

The petition by the victim's parents had said the juvenile “is liable to be tried and punished by the criminal courts for the aforesaid offences, complete with the judicial discretion on established principles of law regarding the award of sentence keeping in view, amongst other factors, the nature and gravity of the offence”.

Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra had opposed the plea, saying that “judicial flavour is not lost in the JJB proceedings” and the age limit of 18 years fixed for not trying a person in criminal court is a valid parameter based on research worldwide.