The Juvenile Board on Thursday rejected Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking trial of juvenile accused in December 16 gangrape-murder case along with the adult accused.
The Board presided over by Principal Magistrate Geetanjali Goel on Wednesday had reserved its order on the petition filed by Janata Party president seeking that no leniency be shown to juvenile as his act was brutal and crime committed by him shows that it was not the action of a juvenile.
Swamy had submitted that the juvenile be prosecuted like all the other co-accused in the case. Seeking directions to stay the proceedings of the case before it, Swamy had referred to the "discrepancies" between the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
"The JJ Act terms those above 18 as adults, while the IPC says its 12," Swamy said adding "The concept of criminal responsibility needs to be added into the Act and allow the court to differentiate between innocent children and juvenile delinquents".
Swamy had said that the JJ Act is a piece of beneficial legislation which has been formulated to protect the innocence of children and its youth and it should not be applied in a brutal gangrape and murder case.
"In the current case the extreme malice and depravity with which the accused has allegedly committed the crime shows that it is not the action of a juvenile, who the law supposes to be of tender age and mind and not fully capable of being responsible for his actions, but rather these are actions of the most evil of men for whom this beneficial legislation clearly is not meant," he had said.
Swamy also moved the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to prosecute the sole juvenile along with five adult accused, saying the waiver from prosecution to such minors was "unreasonable".
"The age of 18 years as the flat cut off waiver in criminal offences is inconsistent with the international conventions and hence, is arbitrary and unreasonable," Swamy had told told a Bench of Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice V K Jain.
The court had disposed of Swamy's plea saying "there was no cause of action to entertain this PIL at this stage. How can this statute [Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act] be interpreted by us in a PIL. We may do so if we get a reference from the lower court concerned."
The Bench, however, had given Swamy the liberty to "take