The Supreme Court on Thursday described a juvenile law that prescribes “admonition” and “group counselling” as punishment for even grave and heinous offences as “far too liberal.”

A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit, expressed reservations about certain provisions in the statute and said law must “satisfy the desire of the society” and prescribe a punishment befitting the gravity of the crime.

The court was hearing the case of a 40-year-old man, convicted of murder, who successfully raised a 'claim of juvenility' in the Supreme Court under Section 7 A of the 2000 Act.

Under this provision, an accused person can raise the 'claim of juvenility' before “any court, at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case”.

The court found that the man was 16 years old when he had allegedly committed the crime in 1990. This meant that the entire murder trial was vitiated and the man should have been treated as juvenile under the law.

As for punishment, Section 15 of the 2000 Act only provides for a juvenile offender to be sent him home after a round of advice or ordered him to perform community service or pay a fine or released him on a bond under the care of his parents or guardian. Juveniles over 17 years old but less than 18 can be sent to a special home for a period of two years or until they cease to be a juvenile.

“This has gone too far on a liberal scale. What is group counselling? It says he will be admonished... what admonition? Then telling his parents...” Justice Misra addressed Mr. Rohatgi.

Referring to Section 7 A, the Bench remarked, “what is this section? Somebody can claim juvenility even after final disposal of the case...”

Mr. Rohatgi said “maximum” number of grave crimes are committed by juveniles between 16 and 18 years of age. “That is why we want to reduce the age to 16,” he said.