New Delhi: The Intelligence Bureau had earlier informed the Delhi High Court that the juvenile rapist had been further radicalised by association with other juveniles in the special home and there was the possibility of his committing an offence. The court said it could act in accordance with the law, but not contrary to the law.
When counsel said there was no reformation programme, Justice Lalit asked: “Suppose reformation takes another seven or 10 years? Do we have to extend the period of his detention every now and then without any legislative sanction?"
Mr Krishnakumar referred to provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Delhi Juvenile Justice Rules to argue for an independent body to review the juvenile convict’s mental status and keep him under protective custody till he reforms and was not a threat to society.
Justice Goel noted that earlier cited clause was only available to juvenile convicts who had no place to go after release. “Sorry, you don’t have a case here,” Justice Lalit told the counsel, and dismissed the appeal.
