ARGUMENT

Whether it was justifiable for the Juvenile Justice Board to trial the
defendants as adults given their age at the time of the crime and their ability to
understand the Juvenile Justice Board's actions ?

The counsel represents the petitioner, The counsel would like to move on to the second
issue..
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High court of Kedar that PEPC's argument
revolves around the delicate balance between justice and rehabilitation, especially when dealing
with youthful offenders. Firstly, it's imperative to acknowledge the tragic circumstances under
which the defendants, particularly Amar, Ayan, Anthony, and Surjeet, grew up. Their
environments were rife with adversity, including absent or abusive parental figures, poverty,
and lack of educational opportunities.

Further It is humbly submitted that, their upbringing, while explaining their involvement
in criminal activities, should also serve as a mitigating factor in their treatment by the justice
system. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2012, which mirrors its
Indian counterpart, recognizes the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into society
for juvenile offenders. This approach prioritizes the best interests of the child while holding
them accountable for their actions.

Further S.15(1) of JJ Act, 2015 says about to conduct a Preliminary test where the
following matters should be considered before considering them as adults Mental and
physical capacity to commit the offense, Ability to understand the consequences of the
offense, Circumstances in which the offense was allegedly committed. As a result, these
youngsters come from adversity-filled backgrounds, including missing or abusive
parental figures, poverty, and a lack of educational chances. The High Court should
reexamine this ruling in light of the defendants.

It is humbly submitted that in the case of the defendants, their ages at the time of the
crime are crucial. Amar, the oldest, was 18 years and 12 days old, while the others were still
minors, aged between 16 and 17. Despite their involvement in criminal behavior, their
youthfulness and the extenuating circumstances of their upbringing must be taken into
account.

The decision of the Juvenile Justice Board to try them as adults raises questions
about the application of the law and the principles it embodies. The Board's decision should have
been guided not only by the severity of the crime but also by the defendants' capacity for
rehabilitation and their developmental stage at the time of the offense.
-2-
It is Submitted that In support of this argument, PEPC cite relevant cases from India
where similar issues were addressed. For instance, the case of "Jyoti Singh Pandey"1 highlighted
the need for a nuanced approach to juvenile justice, considering factors such as socio-economic
background, mental health, and vulnerability to influence.

Furthermore, the alignment of Kedar's legal framework with that of India provides an
opportunity to draw on precedents from Indian courts. Cases such as "Gopinath Ghosh v.
State of West Bengal2" underscore the importance of individualized assessments of juvenile
offenders and the need to prioritize rehabilitation over punitive measures.

It is Humbly submitted that In the case of M. Sudhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014)
3
the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of proportionality and fairness in sentencing
juvenile offenders. The court emphasized the need for specialized treatment and
rehabilitation programs tailored to the individual needs of juvenile offenders to ensure
their successful reintegration into society. This underscores contention for a rehabilitative
rather than punitive approach towards juvenile offenders.

In the Case of Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 4Allahabad High Court emphasized
the need for individualized assessments of juvenile offenders' circumstances and culpability.
The court held that blanket approaches to treating juvenile offenders as adults without
considering their specific backgrounds and vulnerabilities are unjust and contrary to
the principles of juvenile justice. Similarly, in the present case, the defendants' traumatic
upbringing and lack of proper guidance should have been taken into account before
subjecting them to adult trials and punishments.

In Kedar’s National Policy for Children, 2013, reaffirms the government's commitment
to safeguarding the rights and well-being of children, including those entangled in the
criminal justice system. The policy emphasizes the promotion of child-friendly justice
mechanisms, diversion programs, and community-based alternatives to detention. By
aligning with this policy framework, the court can uphold the rights of the defendants while
ensuring their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

1
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Mukesh and Others (2013) 14 SCC 32
2
Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1984 AIR 237
3
M. Sudhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 4 SCC 776
4
Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 10 SCC 209
 -3-
It is further Humbly submitted that The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the
Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules) advocate for non-
custodial measures, educational opportunities, and vocational training for juvenile
offenders. By adhering to these standards, the court can take into account before subjecting
them to adult trials and punishments.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was ratified by
Kedar in 1992, this underscore the country's commitment to protecting the rights and welfare
of children. The UNCRC emphasizes the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration
while ensuring that children are treated with dignity and respect throughout legal
proceedings.
In the case of Neha v. State of Gujarat (2017), 5the Gujarat High Court held that the
primary objective of juvenile justice should be the rehabilitation and reintegration of
young offenders into society.
It is Humbly submitted that In the case of Ashwini Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2015)
6
Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of juveniles in conflict with the law. The
Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act and relevant precedents. It emphasized the need for special treatment of
juveniles in the criminal justice system and highlighted the principle of reformative justice.
The Court considered various factors, including the appellant's age, background, and
the circumstances of the offense. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the appellant
should be treated as a juvenile and be subjected to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
Act. The Court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration of
juveniles into society and ordered appropriate measures for the appellant's
rehabilitation.
It is Humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that while the crime committed by the
defendants is undeniably grave, their age at the time of the offense and the
circumstances of their upbringing necessitate a thoughtful and compassionate approach
to justice. The Juvenile Justice Board's decision to try them as adults may have been well-
intentioned, but it overlooks the fundamental principles of juvenile justice and the potential
for rehabilitation. PEPC urges the High Court to reconsider this decision in light of the
defendants' youth and the principles enshrined in the Juvenile Justice Act.

5
Neha v. State of Gujarat (2017) 1 GLR 617
6
Ashwini Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 289
 PRAYER

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court pleased to:
1. Consider the maintainability of the petition before the High Court, ensuring that
justice is accessible to all, especially the vulnerable youth involved in this case.

2. Honorable Court's discernment in evaluating the justifiability of the Juvenile Justice

Board's decision to try the defendants as adults, taking into account their age at the
time of the crime and their ability to comprehend the legal proceedings.

3. Delve deeply into the provisions of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2012,
examining whether they violate the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 and
Article 15 of the Constitution. We implore the court to assess the consistency of the
Act's classification of juveniles with Article 20(1) of the Constitution and
international legal norms.

4. Uphold the principles of equality, fairness, and the best interests of the child, ensuring
that the rights of the juveniles involved in this case are safeguarded and protected.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equality and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER