MOHAMMAD ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN [Petitioner(s)] Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [Respondent(s)]
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5216/2023
(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)
On November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of India expressed that it would need to review on merit whether the conviction of Samajwadi Party leader Mohammed Abdullah Azam Khan could be reconsidered based on his juvenility at the time of the incident in question. Abdullah Azam Khan, the son of prominent politician Azam Khan, had been convicted of a criminal offense dating back to 2007. This conviction led to his disqualification as a member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, sparking widespread debate and a protracted legal battle. The core issue now before the Supreme Court is whether his alleged juvenility at the time of the offense could invalidate his conviction, and consequently, his disqualification.
The case revolves around events that took place in 2007, where Abdullah Azam Khan was allegedly involved in activities that led to his eventual conviction years later. Following his conviction, the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly disqualified him, which removed him from his elected position. However, Abdullah Azam Khan’s legal defense has argued that he was a minor when the alleged offense occurred. This claim, if proven, could mean that the legal proceedings and sentencing applied to him as an adult were not applicable under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. According to this Act, minors are treated differently than adults in the Indian criminal justice system, typically resulting in different sentencing and rehabilitation provisions aimed at reform rather than punishment.
Recognizing the gravity of this argument, on September 26, 2023, the Supreme Court directed the District Judge of Rampur to submit an official report establishing Abdullah Azam Khan’s age at the time of the incident. This step is crucial, as it will determine whether he was indeed a juvenile during the occurrence of the alleged offense. The District Judge’s findings will provide key evidence for the Supreme Court to determine whether the conviction could be overturned on the grounds of juvenility. If the Supreme Court concludes that Abdullah Azam Khan was a minor in 2007, this may lead to the annulment of his conviction and, consequently, the reversal of his disqualification from the Assembly. The legal implications of such a decision would extend beyond this individual case, setting a potential precedent for similar cases involving juvenility and political office holders. It may establish a clear judicial approach on how allegations and convictions against juveniles, who later take on significant roles in public office, are treated within India’s legal system.
Moreover, this case underscores the intersection between juvenile justice and electoral law, raising questions about the nature of accountability and eligibility for political office. Should a conviction based on an offense committed in one’s youth continue to impact an individual’s political career later in life? This decision could influence future cases where elected officials face disqualification for alleged offenses committed during their youth, especially under India’s complex and often delayed legal system where cases can span years or even decades before resolution.
