.
On May 19, 2024, a speeding Porsche Taycan crashed into two IT professionals who were on a motorbike, killing them. It is alleged that the driver was an intoxicated minor aged 17. The Juvenile Justice Board (“JJB”) immediately granted bail to the juvenile, provided that he writes a 300-word essay on road accidents and their solutions to the Board. This led to a huge public outcry, making this case a media sensation. Consequently, the JJB ordered the juvenile to be detained in an observational home, and the Pune police filed an application to try him as an adult. This incident has brought to the forefront the complex and often controversial topic of trying minors as adults in the Indian legal system
Before 2014, there were no provisions to try a minor as an adult. It was in the aftermath of the devastating Nirbhaya rape case, where one of the accused was a minor, that provided the ignition to amend the Juvenile Justice Act (“JJ Act”). Subsequently, the amended act was passed in 2015 and from then onwards, minors in the age group of 16-18 could be tried as adults. While the Nirbhaya case ignited the flame for minors to be tried as adults, the Porsche crash case could bring winds of change in the JJ Act.
This article is divided into four parts. The first part addresses the current legislation regarding the trial of minors as adults. The second part studies the Pune Porsche case in detail. The third part critically analyses the issues associated with trying minors as adults from different perspectives, and the final part provides solutions to eradicate these issues.
What does the Law say about trying minors as adults?
The Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 was introduced to consolidate and amend the laws pertaining to children in conflict with the law, replacing the JJ Act of 1986. The amendments received significant public attention following the involvement of a juvenile in the gang rape of Nirbhaya (Jyothi Singh) in December 2012. While the five adult convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment, the juvenile received a three-year term in a special home, as per the JJ Act. In essence, the legislation prohibited the trial of individuals under 18 as adults. The judgement of the Nirbhaya case concerning the juvenile offender reignited public debate regarding the existing punitive framework for juveniles in conflict with the law in India.
Consequently, the JJ Act was amended to include Section 19(1)(i), which lays down the provisions for trying children under the age of 18 and above the age of 16 who have committed a heinous offence as adults under certain circumstances. A child in conflict with the law is examined on the following criteria before being trying as an adult:
· If the child has the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence
· If the child understands the consequences of the offence
· The circumstances in which the child allegedly committed the offence
Similarly, in the 2017 case of Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, where a minor murdered a six-year-old, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order to try the minor as an adult as per Section 19(1)(i) of the JJ Act. The Supreme Court also laid down certain guidelines that have to be considered before trying minors as adults. The Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath delivered the following:
“A child with average intelligence/IQ will have the intellectual knowledge of the consequences of his actions. But whether or not he is able to control himself or his actions will depend on his level of emotional competence. For example Risky driving may result in an accident. But if emotional competence is not high, the urge for thrill-seeking may get the better of his intellectual understanding.”
With this judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the role that emotional competence plays in determining whether a minor should be tried as an adult or not. The court noted that a child’s choices or behaviours can be significantly swayed by peer influence or impulsive nature. It further stated that this, combined with the child’s limited experience and their inability to assess the long-term effects of their actions, can result in “impulsive/reckless decision-making.”
On the other hand, India has signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC), which says that any person under the age of 18 is considered a minor. Article 37 of the UNCRC specifies that no person below the age of 18 should be subjected to death or life imprisonment. From this, it is clear that JJ act directly contravenes the provisions of UNCRC.
Thus, though the 2015 JJ Act amendment allows for the trial of some juveniles as adults – as seen in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur – the Supreme Court has underlined the importance of emotional competence in addition to intellectual capacity in making such judgments. This move, though a response to public sentiment, is in conflict with India’s international commitment under the UNCRC, which unequivocally opposes the trial of minors as adults in criminal courts.
Unfolding the Pune Porsche case
The case revolves around the death of two IT professionals in the early hours of the morning. They were traveling on a two-wheeler when they were hit by a Porsche driven by an allegedly intoxicated minor, who was the son of a real estate tycoon. The minor was charged with several offenses, the major one being Section 304 of IPC, which is Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder. Soon after the incident, the minor was given bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act provided that he writes a 300-word essay, works with the traffic police for 15 days, undergoes treatment for alcohol abuse, and seeks psychiatric counselling. Due to the public outroar, his bail was revoked, and he was detained in an observational home.
Soon, the case became sensational with news channels covering it 24×7. One of the main reasons for this was the alleged involvement of money and influence in the case. The allegations of evidence tampering have led to several other arrests of the minor’s family members, further intensifying the public uproar. It is in the aftermath of this that the Pune police filed an application to try him as an adult.
What has to be noted in this case is that the crime that the minor is accused of – Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder(Section 304 IPC) does not fall under the category of ‘heinous offense.’ As mentioned above, a minor has to commit an offense that falls under the ‘heinous offense’ category to be tried as an adult. Section 2(33) of the JJ Act, classifies ‘heinous offenses’ as any offense “for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more”.
On the contrary, in the case of Shilpa Mittal vs. State of NCT and Anr, the court took a view favouring children. The bench ruled that the ‘4th category’ of offenses should be considered ‘serious offenses’. The 4th category of offenses includes those offenses where the minimum sentence is less than 7 years, or there is no minimum sentence prescribed, but the maximum sentence is more than 7 years – Section 304 IPC falls within this category. Consequently, the JJB amended the JJ Act in 2021, remodelling the definition of serious offenses. Section 2(54) of the JJ Act now considers any offense where the maximum imprisonment is for a term of more than seven years but no minimum imprisonment or minimum imprisonment is of less than seven years – as a ‘serious offense’. Hence, public outcry cannot be a reason to try the minor as an adult as that precedent would have far more devastating consequences for minors in India.
Although public sentiment runs high and there have been allegations of judicial overreach in the matter of the Pune Porsche, the law remains crystal clear: culpable homicide not amounting to murder is neither a ‘heinous offense’ nor a ‘serious offense,’ as constructed by the Shilpa Mittal judgment and as also provided for through the 2021 amendment to the JJ Act. Such characterization technically bars the minor’s trial as an adult, irrespective of media reporting or public sentiment. This indicates that the question of whether a minor should be tried as an adult or not is a complicated one that requires analysis.
Niranjan Erat, a Second-year student at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies(NUALS).
