Read how SC dismissed plea for extending December 16 juvenile's custody

DCW: The juvenile’s stay at the observation home will have to be extended. He has not reformed. Also getting to know he has been radicalised. There was no reformation policy in place.

SC: You are the government. You are part of it. You had to do it.

DCW: The three-year rule is not an edict etched on stone. It can be increased depending on the nature of the offence.

SC: Read the law. There is provision only to reduce the term, not increase it.

DCW: Your lordship can interpret the law for such cases. We are only asking for assessment of his mental state. The court will only be aiding his rehabilitation.

SC: But the process of interpretation cannot be by taking away somebody’s rights under article Section 21 of the Constitution (right to life and liberty).

Centre: We support the stand taken by the DCW.

SC to Centre: How? You have not made any law. There must be some legislation. What if that enactment takes you 7 to 8 years. We cannot extend the detention more than what is specified under the existing Juvenile Act. We also share your concern but going by the law we cannot do it. Everything has to be in accordance with the law and we have to follow the law.

DCW: The juvenile need not be considered outside the realm of law on release. This provision can be used for two years till he attains the age of 21 and by then he may be reformed.

SC: No. This provision was available to only juvenile convicts, who had no place to go after their release.

DCW: The court may at least summon a report on his mental condition. SC: We are sorry.

(First appeared in Mail Today.)