A Juvenile Justice Act was passed in 1986. Fourteen years later, another Juvenile Justice Act was passed in 2000. Both of these Acts were meant to ensure that children who committed crimes were treated humanely and that they were given an adequate opportunity to reform themselves away from the influence of hardened criminals.

One of the main problems with the application of the criminal justice system to juveniles though has been that the two statutes of 1986 and 2000 both defined juveniles differently. Under the 1986 Act, juveniles were defined as those under the age of 16 while under the 2000 Act, juveniles were defined as those under the age of 18.

The result of this inconsistency was that all those who committed crimes when they were over the age of 16 and under the age of 18 between the years 1986 and 2000 wound up being treated like adults. Many of them are still undertrials today.

One such person, Hari Ram, approached the Supreme Court for relief. He had allegedly committed an offence at the age of 17 and was being treated as an adult. A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph allowed his plea to be treated as a juvenile and settled the inconsistency between the two statutes.

The Court, in the case of Hari Ram v State of Rajasthan, said that it was unacceptable to have two different definitions operate simultaneously. It said, “…all persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to April 1, 2001 [the day the 2000 Act came into force] would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility was raised after they had attained the age of 18 years on or before the commencement of the Act and were undergoing sentence upon being convicted.”

Thus, the 2000 law has now, thankfully, unequivocally been given precedence over the 1986 Act. This should come as welcome news to all those who can now benefit from the definition of juveniles under the 2000 law.