RThe Karnataka High Court in Karnataka in Karnataka was brought by a milestone in the 2019 criminal appeal No. 200093, emphasizing the key role that the police and judges have to play in the identification of juvenile perpetrators to establish criminal proceedings. He repeated the need for alertness in knowing crimes concerning juveniles. The court stressed that proper identification could prevent incorrect imprisonment with adults.
Karthik, convicted of murder MuniyAppy, was the second accused in the case, while his father was the primary accused. The evidence showed that MuniyAppa escaped with Chaitra, Karthik’s nurses, without the consent of the family. Karthik and his father held resentment against MuniyApp, and more eyewitnesses confirmed their involvement in the crime.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court to appeal, the question of the juvenile was raised. According to the stipulated legal principles, at any stage of the proceedings it is possible to introduce a lawsuit for a juvenile – even after the conclusion of court proceedings. The juvenile concerns the claim that the accused was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense was committed, in which case the individual should be tried under the Judicial Act (Child Care and Protection) of 2015 (JJ Act).
In this case, there was a crime in 2011, when the 2000 JJ Act was in force. Although the application for a juvenile was submitted in 2023, the High Court explained that, according to Section 25 of the JJ Act of 2015, the law must apply at the time of the crime. The court firmly declared that if the police or judge were to pay more attention at the time of the arrest and the court, Karthik could be identified as a juvenile and placed under a juvenile court system. Instead, he spent 13 years in adult prison – the grave abortion of justice.
The JJ law requires minors to be submitted before the Judicial Council (JJB). Unfortunately, in many cases, juveniles are incorrectly considered adults and are placed in prison, where they are exposed to physical violence, sexual abuse and threatened to become hardened criminals. The Court confirmed the violation of Karthik’s rights and granted him compensation of 50,000 GBP for spending 13 years in prison. If it were made before JJB, it would serve a maximum of three years in a youthful house.
In the step of the Precedens, the court ordered another general secretary who holds the rank of the judge of the meeting to investigate Karthik’s request for a juvenile. This ensured that the matter was quickly solved by the appropriate judicial authority. The Court also ordered the judgment to be submitted to the JJ High Court, which strengthened the need for systemic awareness and reform.
The newly appointed members and chairmen of JJBS must now be sensitized to updated rules for the Juvenile Justice of Karnataka (care and protection), 2025.
They are too often considered to be adults, despite their own requests that they are minors. In many cases, judges deny bail and psychological trauma to place in prison for adults can have long -term impacts. There were also cases where the juveniles arrested together with adult perpetrators are treated as adults, and instead of observation houses designed for juveniles are located behind bars.
In a recent judgment, the High Court in the Patnu has received a lawsuit with a juvenile 32 years after an alleged offense.
In another judgment in criminal appeal no. In this case, the petitioner relied on a transfer certificate to support the entitlement to juvenile. However, the Court reiterated that the determination of the age must be based on the documents referred to in JJ. Given that other official records indicate that the individual was not a minor at the time of the crime, the court refused to have a lawsuit with a juvenile.
The aim of the JJ Act is to provide a rehabilitation and reformative environment and enable youthful to integrate into society. This main purpose is undermined when minors are sent to adult prisons.
The names were changed to protect identity. Geeta Sajanshetty is a defender at the High Court in Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench and a former member
Published – 11. August 2025 01:13 IS
