DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY & ORS. versus RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 28-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 9 S.C.R. 283 
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY & ORS. 
v. 
RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD & 
ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.695 of 2014) 
MARCH 28, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Juvenile Justice Act, 
2000 (as 
amended) 
- C 
Constitutionality of - Enactment of the Act - Purpose -
lnclusioh of all persons under the age .o(18 into a .class called 
'juveniles' - Validity - Held: The Act was enacted to give full 
and complete effect to the country's international obligations 
arising from India being a sigRatory to three separate D 
conventions, namely, the Beijing Rules, the UN Convention 
and the Havana Rules - Also, the Act is a beneficial piece of 
legislation - If the Act is plainly read and understood, the 
resultant effect thereof is wholly consistent with Art. 14 - The 
Act, therefore, need not be read down, as suggested, to save E . 
it from· the 
vice of uncons(itutionafity for such 
unconstitu#orrality does not exist - If the legislature has 
adopted the age of 18 as the dividing line between juveniles 
and adults-End such a decision is constitution-any permissible 
the enquiry by the Courts must com,£;1, to an end - Even F 
otherwise there is a considerable body of world opinion that 
all under 18 persons ought to be treated as juveniles and 
separate treatment ought to be meted out to them so far as 
offences committed by such persons are concerned . 
. 
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as amended) - Criminal G 
justice system and the system for dea/-ing with offenders under 
the Act - Difference between - Elucidated. 
283 
H 
A 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Classification or 
categorization of persons into one class/group - Validity -
Held: Classification or categorization need not be the outcome 
of a mathematical or arithmetical precision in the similarities 
of the persons included in a class and there may be 
B 
differences amongst the members included within a particular 
class - So long as the broad features of the categorization are 
identifiable and distinguishable and the categorization made 
is reasonably connected with the object targeted, Art. 14 will 
not forbid such a course of action - Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 
c (as amended). 
D 
E 
Doctrines - Doctrin(!C:'-Of "reading. down" - Principles of -
Held: Reading down the provisions of a sti11ute cannot be 
resorte·d to when the meaning thereof is plain and 
unambiguous and the legislative intent is Clear. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Thinking and practices in 
foreign jurisdictions - Relevance of - Held: Contrary 
international opinion, thinking or practice does not dictate the 
legislation of a sovereign nation - Juvenile Justice. 
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The Juvenile Justice Act (as amended), as 
manifestly clear from the Statement of Objects and 
Reasons, has been enacted to give full and complete 
F effect to the country's international obligations arising 
from India being a signatory to the three separate 
conventions, namely, the Beijing Rules, the UN 
Convention and the Havana Rules. Also, the Act is a 
beneficial piece of legislation and must therefore receive 
G its due interpretation as a legislation belonging to the 
said category. [Para 39] [320-H; 321-A-B, C] 
H 
1.2. Reading down the provisions of a statute cannot 
be resorted to when the meaning thereof is plain and 
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. RAJU THR. MEMBER 
285 
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD 
unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear. Courts 
A 
must read the legislation literally in the first instance. If 
on such reading and understanding the vice of 
unconstitutionality is attracted, the courts must explore 
whether there has been an unintended legislative 
omission. If such an intendment can be reasonably 
B 
implied without undertaking what, unmistakably, would 
be a. legislative exercise, the Act may be read down to 
save it .from unconstitutionality. [Para 42] [323-8-D] 
1.3. In the present case, there is no ambiguity, much 
C 
less any uncertainty, in the language used to convey 
what the legislature had intended. All persons below the 
age of 18 are put in one class/group by the Act to provide 
a separate scheme of investigation, trial and punishment 
for offences committed by them. A class of persons is 
sought to be created who are treated differently. This is 
D 
being done to further/effectuate the views of the 
international comm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.