Minority Protection Under Criminal Laws
What Does Minority Mean in Criminal Law?
Minority generally refers to individuals under the age of 18 years.
Special protections exist for minors because of their physical, psychological, and emotional immaturity.
Criminal laws treat minors differently to emphasize rehabilitation and reform rather than punishment.
Legal Framework Protecting Minors
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act): Primary legislation dealing with children in conflict with law.
Section 82 and 83 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
Section 82: Children under 7 years are incapable of committing offences (doli incapax).
Section 83: Children between 7 and 12 years presumed incapable unless proven otherwise.
Sections 359-374 of CrPC: Special procedures for juveniles.
Article 15(3) and 21 of the Constitution: Emphasize protection and dignity of minors.
Key Principles of Minority Protection
Separate courts and procedures (Juvenile Justice Boards).
Non-adversarial approach: Focus on reform, not punishment.
Confidentiality in proceedings.
Prohibition of death penalty or life imprisonment without reformative possibilities for juveniles.
Detention in separate homes, not regular prisons.
Landmark Case Laws on Minority Protection
1. R.C. Sharma v. Union of India (1977 AIR 1322 SC)
Facts:
The case involved the protection of juvenile offenders and interpretation of Sections 82 and 83 of IPC.
Issue:
What is the presumption about criminal capacity of children under 7 and between 7-12 years?
Holding:
Section 82 gives absolute immunity to children under 7 years.
Section 83 creates a rebuttable presumption for children between 7-12 years; prosecution must prove the child knew the nature of the act.
Courts must be extremely cautious in trying minors.
Significance:
Reinforced doli incapax principle protecting minors.
Clarified burden on prosecution for children between 7-12 years.
2. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997 AIR 699 SC)
Facts:
The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of child labor and its relation to exploitation and juvenile protection.
Issue:
Whether child labor laws and protections under criminal laws extend to minors exploited in hazardous employment?
Holding:
Court strongly condemned child labor and exploitation.
Directed enforcement of laws to protect children from hazardous work.
Emphasized safeguarding minors’ constitutional rights, including freedom from exploitation.
Significance:
Strengthened protection for minors beyond criminal acts to social exploitation.
Highlighted State’s duty to protect vulnerable children.
3. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986 AIR 1773 SC)
Facts:
The case highlighted conditions in juvenile homes and treatment of minors in custody.
Issue:
Whether the rights of juvenile offenders were being violated in custodial homes?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held juveniles must be kept separately from adult prisoners.
Ordered improvements in juvenile homes’ conditions.
Emphasized dignity, health, and rehabilitation over punishment.
Significance:
Landmark judgment ensuring humane treatment of minors.
Reaffirmed special procedural safeguards for juveniles.
4. Sudarshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 6 SCC 36
Facts:
The accused claimed minority at the time of offence to seek protection under juvenile laws.
Issue:
How to determine age and applicability of juvenile justice provisions?
Holding:
Court stated age determination must be based on medical evidence and other proofs.
Mere claim of minority without evidence will not exempt from trial as adult.
Juvenile justice protections apply strictly if minority is proven.
Significance:
Stressed importance of reliable age proof.
Balanced protection with preventing misuse of juvenile status.
5. Lalu @ Pappu v. State of Bihar (2015) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
The appellant was charged with a serious offence and claimed juvenile status.
Issue:
Whether juveniles involved in heinous offences can be tried as adults.
Holding:
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which allows juveniles aged 16-18 involved in heinous offences to be tried as adults after inquiry.
Emphasized that welfare and reform remain primary but serious crimes require balancing public safety.
Juvenile Justice Boards must conduct preliminary assessment before deciding trial as adult.
Significance:
Balanced protection with accountability for serious crimes.
Clarified new juvenile law’s provisions on serious offences.
6. Khushal Rao v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1952 SC 111)
Facts:
Protection of minors in custody and application of criminal law.
Issue:
Whether minors should be kept separate from adults in police custody.
Holding:
The Court held that minors should not be kept with adults in custody.
Police must follow special care and procedures.
Significance:
Early judgment emphasizing special treatment for minors.
Reaffirmed principle of segregation and protection.
Summary Table: Minority Protection and Case Laws
| Case Name | Year | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| R.C. Sharma v. Union of India | 1977 | Doli incapax principle, burden on prosecution |
| M.C. Mehta v. Tamil Nadu | 1997 | Protection from exploitation, child labor laws |
| Sheela Barse v. Union of India | 1986 | Humane treatment and separate custody for juveniles |
| Sudarshan Singh v. Punjab | 2010 | Age determination for juvenile protection |
| Lalu @ Pappu v. Bihar | 2015 | Juvenile trial as adult in heinous offences |
| Khushal Rao v. Maharashtra | 1952 | Separation of minors from adults in custody |
Conclusion
The Indian criminal justice system accords special protections to minors recognizing their vulnerability.
The Juvenile Justice Act and IPC provisions protect children from harsh criminal liability, emphasizing rehabilitation.
Courts enforce strict procedural safeguards, humane treatment, and focus on reform.
However, serious offences committed by older minors (16-18 years) may warrant adult trial after due inquiry.
Proper age determination and avoidance of misuse are key challenges.
These case laws demonstrate the balance between protecting minors and safeguarding society.
RELATED Blog
0 comments