The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the juvenile justice system was created not just to punish but to rehabilitate and help children develop into responsible adults.
“Since juveniles are more amenable to rehabilitation than adults, the juvenile justice system is designed not just to punish but to rehabilitate, emphasising correction and guidance to help children develop into responsible adults,” observed the top court.
The top court further observed that the system specifically addresses the situation where children are alleged to have infringed criminal law and operate under the premise that juveniles are different from adults and require special attention and treatment.
These observations were made in a seven-page verdict by top court’s Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. Justice Shah was leading a three-judge bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah, which heard the case, wherein the petitioner had challenged a verdict issued by the Peshawar High Court (PHC) which denied the post-arrest bail application of the petitioner. The petitioner is charged with having committed heinous crimes, including murder and attempt to murder, in Charsadda.
The petitioner was arrested after Ubaid Ullah complained to the local police that he and Shafiq Ur Rehman were travelling on the motorway at night on August 16, 2021, when the petitioner, along with the other co-accused, signalled them to stop. Rehman, who was driving the car, chose not to stop. As a result, the petitioner and the other co-accused allegedly fired upon them, causing Rehman to sustain fatal injuries to which he subsequently succumbed, while the complainant remained unhurt. The petitioner was aged 14 years and five months, at the time of the commission of the offence.
In his verdict, Justice Shah further observed that the main objective of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 was to modify and amend the law relating to the criminal justice system for juveniles, with a special focus on disposing of their cases through diversion and socially reintegrating with the ‘best interest of the child’ principle as a primary consideration.
“A range of factors underscore the need for a special justice system for juveniles,” Justice Shah observed, adding that these include juveniles’ lack of maturity, propensity to take risks, susceptibility to peer influence, as well as intellectual disabilities, mental illness, and victimisation.
In Pakistan, the juvenile justice system finds its ideological roots in the Constitution, observed Justice Shah, adding that Article 25(3) of the Constitution empowers the State to make special provisions for the protection of children, even if such protection discriminates against adults.
“Furthermore, Article 35 of the Constitution mandates that the state shall protect children. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”), Pakistan is also under international obligation to take special measures for the protection and rehabilitation of juveniles who come into conflict with the law.”
The verdict said therapeutic jurisprudence, as defined by David B. Wexler, involves ‘the use of social science to study the extent to which a legal rule or practice promotes the psychological or physical well-being of the people it affects.
“It offers an interdisciplinary perspective with a problem-solving approach that views the law itself as a potential therapeutic agent,” Justice Shah observed, further adding that the therapeutic jurisprudence forms the bedrock of the juvenile justice system, integrating the societal responsibilities of sanction and rehabilitation in line with the principles of rehabilitative and restorative justice.
“This holistic framework ensures that the juvenile justice system not only addresses legal accountability but also prioritises the well-being and developmental needs of juvenile offenders.”
While juvenile justice is more narrowly focused on dealing with crimes, including aspects of both punishment and rehabilitation, child justice is more encompassing, aiming to protect and uphold the rights and best interests of all children involved in the legal system, the verdict read.
Justice Shah said that Section 6(5) of the 2018 law provides that any juvenile who has been detained for a continuous period exceeding six months and whose trial has not been completed shall be released on bail, provided that an act or omission of such juvenile has not occasioned the delay in the conclusion of the trial.
Justice Shah further observed that the PHC's approach to denying the petitioner the benefit of Section 6(5) of the 2018 law, by observing that the offence he was charged with was ‘heinous’ was not legally correct, but rather misconceived.
“There is no evidence on record indicating that the delay in concluding the trial was caused by any act or omission of the petitioner. Therefore, the prerequisites of Section 6(5) of the 2018 Act are fulfilled, which entitles the petitioner to the grant of post-arrest bail as a matter of right on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial.”
The top court granted the petitioner post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of a bail bond of Rs50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.