A judgment of the Bombay High Court delivered on May 2, 2008 by Justices F I Rebello and K U Chandiwal has changed the law with reference to juvenile offenders.

The ruling extends the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 to any person who was a below the age of eighteen at the time when he committed an offence.

When the Juvenile Justice Act was first passed in 1986, it defined a juvenile as a person under the age of sixteen years. This was raised to eighteen years by an amendment in 2000 which came into effect in 2001.The 2000 amendment said:

Section 2(k): ‘juvenile’ or ‘child’ means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;
Section 2(l): ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence.

In 2005, the Supreme Court held that the 2000 amendment did not have retrospective effect.

The Act was further amended in 2006. Section 2(l) was changed to read: ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence.

It is this amendment that the Bombay High Court has said has retrospective effect.

This judgment was given in a case where a convict Imtiyaz Shaikh, now 30, comitted a murder in 1995 when he was 16 years and 10 months old. He has been in custody since 1995 but the benefit of the Act has now been extended to him.