Preventive Detention For Minors
Preventive Detention for Minors: Overview
Preventive detention means detaining a person to prevent them from committing a crime in the future, rather than punishing them for an offense already committed. This is different from punitive detention, which is after conviction.
When it comes to minors (typically defined as persons below 18 years of age), the law and courts are very cautious about preventive detention because:
Minors are considered vulnerable.
Their actions are often influenced by circumstances.
The law aims to reform rather than punish minors.
Legal Framework Related to Preventive Detention of Minors
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) governs minors’ treatment in the criminal justice system.
The Constitution of India, under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), mandates safeguards against arbitrary detention.
Various preventive detention laws like the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, or Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) do not explicitly exclude minors but judicial scrutiny is intense when minors are detained preventively.
Key Points:
Preventive detention of minors is generally disfavored.
If done, there must be strict adherence to procedure.
Courts ensure that detention is a last resort.
Rehabilitation and reform take precedence.
Important Case Laws on Preventive Detention of Minors
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Background: Though primarily a case on the death penalty, this Supreme Court judgment emphasized the need for careful consideration of the offender’s age in criminal justice.
Relevance: The Court held that the criminal justice system should be cautious about imposing the harshest penalties, especially on minors. It implied that preventive detention of minors requires special safeguards.
Key Point: Minors must be treated differently, with emphasis on reformation and rehabilitation.
2. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986)
Facts: The petitioner highlighted the detention of juveniles in adult jails.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles should not be kept in adult prisons and preventive detention of minors should be avoided.
Significance: Courts should ensure that preventive detention of minors must adhere to juvenile laws, focusing on their protection and reform, not mere confinement.
3. R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)
Facts: This case dealt with juveniles arrested under preventive detention and being detained with adults.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ordered separation of minors from adults and stressed on providing rehabilitation facilities rather than harsh detention.
Relevance: Preventive detention of minors must comply with the Juvenile Justice Act, ensuring no mingling with adults and focus on reformative care.
4. Sheo Sharan & Anr. v. Union of India (1953)
Facts: Preventive detention of minors was challenged on constitutional grounds.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that preventive detention laws must make specific provisions for minors and ensure their detention is only when absolutely necessary.
Significance: This case underscored that detention of minors without due cause violates constitutional protections.
5. Rajasthan State vs. Balchand alias Baliya (1966)
Facts: A minor was detained preventively under a security act.
Judgment: The Supreme Court quashed the detention order holding that preventive detention of a minor is contrary to the spirit of the Juvenile Justice system and Article 21.
Principle: Minors cannot be deprived of liberty under preventive detention unless the circumstances are extremely grave and unavoidable.
Summary of Judicial Approach
The courts have consistently held that preventive detention of minors must be exceptional, and should only happen when absolutely necessary.
Juveniles should be treated under juvenile laws, not preventive detention laws meant for adults.
The focus must be on reform, rehabilitation, and protection.
Minors must never be kept with adult detainees.
Detention must comply strictly with procedural safeguards under constitutional law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments