Kerala High Court issues guidelines to ensure juveniles are not mistakenly tried as adults

The Kerala High Court recently issued guidelines to ensure that juveniles or minors are not mistakenly treated as adults in criminal cases, merely because the authorities fail to cross check their age while arresting them [Mahesh & anr v State of Kerala]..The order was passed after the Court came across a case where two persons (petitioners) who were arrested as minors underwent over a decade of imprisonment after the authorities failed to verify their juvenile status at the time of their arrest and trial. A Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and G Girish observed that the petitioners unnecessarily suffered incarceration for over 14 years due to this lapse.The Court pointed out that if the petitioners' juvenile status had been properly verified, they would have been sent to an observation home, with a maximum detention period of three years."It is most unfortunate that the petitioners had to undergo incarceration in prison for a period of about 14 years due to the failure of the authorities concerned to take note of the fact that they were juveniles at the time of commission of the crime. If their juvenility was disclosed to the Magistrate, who conducted the enquiry, or the Additional Sessions Judge, who conducted the trial, the maximum period of detention they would have to undergo in some observation homes would have been three years," the Court said. .The Court also urged the legislature to consider addressing gaps in the law to prevent such cases from recurring. "We also expect the Legislature to consider the inadequacy in the relevant laws on the issue highlighted in this Order, and take appropriate remedial measures," the Court said. .The case concerned Mahesh and Rajesh who, along with their parents, were arrested in 2004 and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010 for the murder of a relative.At the time of arrest, the petitioners' ages were recorded as 20 and 19 years, respectively, based on their physical appearance and family declarations. The police failed to cross-check this aspect. Further, this was not challenged by their counsel during trial, and went unnoticed by judges during their trial and subsequent appeals. However, it later came to light that they were around 17 years old when they were arrested. .Their juvenile status was only revealed in 2024 when the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) directed authorities to identify prisoners who were minors when they committed their offences. School records confirmed this, and an inquiry was also conducted by an additional sessions judge to verify the same. The petitioners then approached the High Court seeking the recall of a 2016 judgment by which their appeal challenging their conviction was dismissed..The Court took a serious view of the failure to verify the age of the petitioners. It referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v State of UP (2013) to reiterate that courts too have a responsibility to protect the rights of juvenile accused. "It could be seen from the observations of the Apex Court in the above decision that the responsibility to protect the rights and interests of juveniles, and to ensure that they are not left out to mingle and mix up with other prisoners, is more up on the judiciary, rather than the Investigating Agencies," it noted. However, the Court also noted that there was no clear provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act), or other relevant laws which require authorities to verify the age of offenders. .The Court, therefore, issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent the wrongful trial of juveniles as adults. According to these guidelines, the arresting officer is required to verify the age of the accused by checking authentic documents such as a matriculation certificate, birth certificate, Aadhaar card, or electoral identity card. This verification must be documented in the remand report, and other relevant documents should be attached.If the arresting officer cannot produce such records, the reasons for concluding that the person is not a juvenile must be stated in the remand report, followed by an immediate inquiry into the age of the accused, the Court added. This process must be completed before the accused is produced before a Magistrate or Judge. The guidelines also place a responsibility on the magistrate or judge to verify the age of the accused based on the documents presented by the investigating agency. If the magistrate or judge is not satisfied with the documents or the inquiry conducted by the arresting officer, they must refrain from remanding the accused to prison, the High Court added. The Court emphasised that in such cases, appropriate orders regarding the accused person's custody must be issued.If there is a possibility that the accused may be a juvenile, then further inquiry by the judiciary must be in line with Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, the Court further said. .The petitioners/ applicants were represented by Advocates Jijo Joseph and Ramesh P.Director General of Prosecution PN Narayanan and Senior Government Pleader Sajju S appeared for the State. .[Read Order]