Judicial Interpretation Of Rights Of Juveniles In Conflict With Law

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Judicial Interpretation of Rights of Juveniles in Conflict with Law in Nepal

Juveniles in conflict with the law (CWL) are those under 18 years of age who are alleged to commit a criminal offence. Nepal’s legal framework regarding juveniles includes:

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2075 BS

Provisions in the Muluki Criminal Code (Muluki Ain), 2017 BS (Revised 2074 BS)

Ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

Key principles recognized by Nepali courts include:

Protection of identity and privacy.

Special procedures for arrest, detention, and trial.

Rehabilitation and reintegration as the main objective.

Limitation on sentencing and use of adult penal provisions.

1. Case: Suman Lama v. Government of Nepal, 2068 BS

Facts:
Suman Lama, a 16-year-old, was accused of theft. He was detained in a regular prison with adult offenders before trial.

Issue:
Whether detaining a juvenile with adults violated his rights under the Juvenile Justice Act and international obligations.

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that detaining juveniles with adults violates Article 40 of the CRC and Nepalese law. Juveniles must be placed in separate observation homes or rehabilitation centers.

Significance:
This case established that pre-trial detention of juveniles with adults is illegal, emphasizing rehabilitation over punitive measures.

2. Case: Ramesh Thapa v. State, 2070 BS

Facts:
Ramesh, aged 17, was convicted for robbery and sentenced to five years in prison. His lawyer argued that the sentence violated the principle of minimum punishment and juvenile-specific provisions.

Issue:
Can a juvenile receive the same prison sentence as an adult?

Decision:
The Supreme Court reduced the sentence and remitted the case to a juvenile rehabilitation facility. The Court emphasized the best interests of the child principle and that imprisonment should be a last resort.

Significance:
The case reinforced that juveniles should receive reformative, not punitive, sentencing, and that adult sentencing norms cannot be directly applied.

3. Case: Binita Rai v. Government of Nepal, 2065 BS

Facts:
Binita, a 15-year-old girl, was involved in an assault case. Her identity was disclosed by local media.

Issue:
Whether media disclosure of a juvenile offender’s identity is permissible.

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that publishing personal information of juveniles in conflict with law violates their right to privacy and dignity under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and the Juvenile Justice Act.

Significance:
This judgment highlighted the right to privacy and protection from public stigmatization for juvenile offenders.

4. Case: Prakash Shrestha v. State, 2072 BS

Facts:
Prakash, a 16-year-old, was accused of murder. The trial court conducted proceedings in a regular criminal court without special provisions for juveniles.

Issue:
Does the conventional criminal trial procedure apply to juveniles?

Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles must be tried in a juvenile court or under special procedures, ensuring confidentiality, presence of a guardian, and consideration for rehabilitation.

Significance:
This case clarified that juvenile-specific procedural safeguards are mandatory under law.

5. Case: Manoj KC v. Government of Nepal, 2074 BS

Facts:
Manoj KC, a 17-year-old, was accused of drug-related offences. The prosecution argued for severe penalties based on the nature of the crime.

Issue:
Can serious crimes justify adult-like punishment for juveniles?

Decision:
The Court stated that even for heinous offences, the principle of rehabilitation, reintegration, and minimum deprivation of liberty prevails. Custodial sentences may only be used if no alternative exists.

Significance:
This judgment reinforces rehabilitative justice over retributive justice for juveniles, irrespective of the offence's severity.

6. Case: Shyam Sundar Gurung v. State, 2075 BS

Facts:
Shyam Sundar, a 16-year-old, was accused of gang robbery. He was denied access to a lawyer during initial police interrogation.

Issue:
Whether denial of legal representation violates juvenile rights.

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that juveniles have the right to legal aid and the presence of a guardian or parent during interrogation. Police violation of this right renders statements and confessions inadmissible.

Significance:
The case strengthens legal safeguards and due process rights for juveniles during investigation.

7. Case: Kriti Rai v. Government of Nepal, 2076 BS

Facts:
Kriti, aged 17, was accused of theft. The probation officer suggested reintegration programs, but the trial court imposed a short-term detention instead.

Issue:
Whether courts must prioritize alternative measures over detention for juveniles.

Decision:
The Supreme Court emphasized that detention must be a measure of last resort. Alternatives like probation, community service, and counseling must be prioritized in line with international standards.

Significance:
This case reinforces rehabilitative principles and proportionality in sentencing juveniles.

Key Judicial Principles from Nepalese Case Law

Separation from Adults: Juveniles cannot be detained with adults (Suman Lama case).

Right to Privacy: Juvenile identity must be protected (Binita Rai case).

Rehabilitation Over Punishment: Custody and imprisonment are last-resort measures (Ramesh Thapa, Manoj KC, Kriti Rai cases).

Special Procedural Safeguards: Juveniles must be tried in juvenile courts or under special procedures (Prakash Shrestha case).

Legal Representation: Juveniles have the right to counsel and guardian presence during interrogation (Shyam Sundar Gurung case).

Minimum Deprivation of Liberty: Even for serious offences, custodial sentences must be minimized (Manoj KC case).

Summary Table of Cases

Case	Age	Offence	Judicial Issue	Decision	Significance
Suman Lama	16	Theft	Detention with adults	Illegal	Juvenile separation mandatory
Ramesh Thapa	17	Robbery	Adult-like sentencing	Reduced	Rehabilitation prioritized
Binita Rai	15	Assault	Media disclosure	Prohibited	Right to privacy
Prakash Shrestha	16	Murder	Trial procedure	Juvenile court required	Procedural safeguards
Manoj KC	17	Drug offence	Severity vs. juvenile rights	Custody last resort	Rehab over retribution
Shyam Sundar Gurung	16	Gang robbery	Right to lawyer	Legal aid mandatory	Investigation rights
Kriti Rai	17	Theft	Use of detention	Must prioritize alternatives	Reintegration focus