Baljit Singh Sidhu said that an indefinite prison sentence “at the pleasure of the ruler” for serious offences does little to rehabilitate child offenders.
“A long detention period in jail only stifles a child’s potential, burying their talent just for one costly mistake made in their youth,” he said.
He noted that such detention occurs during the most productive years of a child’s life—years that could otherwise be spent excelling in education, sports and social development.
“The Act was introduced 25 years ago, and it is time for a comprehensive review together with other penal laws like the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code,” he told FMT.
Baljit said the Act must be updated to address modern challenges, including complex technology-driven crimes and the evolving nature of child exploitation.
His remarks came in response to last week’s Federal Court ruling, which dismissed applications by seven child prisoners seeking a review of their sentences.
The applicants had argued that their cases should be reconsidered following 2023 amendments that commuted the mandatory death penalty and natural life imprisonment for adult convicts to fixed jail terms.
Delivering the decision of the five-member bench, Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah said the remedy available to the child offenders was to seek commutation of their sentences through the pardon process.
The child convicts had contended that their continued detention under Section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 violated their constitutional rights to life and equal treatment under Articles 5(1) and 8, especially after the abolition of mandatory death sentences and natural life imprisonment for adults.
Before 2023, adults convicted of murder, drug trafficking or kidnapping faced the mandatory death penalty, while children convicted of similar offences were detained at the ruler’s pleasure.
Lawyer Salim Bashir said Parliament’s failure to review the Child Act during the 2023 amendments may have created a lacuna in the law.
He acknowledged that the Federal Court had interpreted the law correctly, but stressed that it was now Parliament’s responsibility to address the gap.
“Child offenders being detained indeterminately at the pleasure of the ruler means leaving the offender in perpetual uncertainty, and leads to various social and mental issues,” he said.
Salim noted that although the Child Act provides for the Board of Visiting Justices to conduct annual reviews, the inner workings of the process remain “opaque.”
He recalled that in 2007, the Court of Appeal, in a case involving a boy convicted of murdering his tuition teacher’s daughter, ruled that once a person is convicted, sentencing power lies with the judge, not the executive.
The court declared detention at the ruler’s pleasure unconstitutional, as it improperly transferred judicial authority to the executive.
However, the decision was overturned the following year by the Federal Court in a narrow 2–1 ruling. The majority held that Section 97 was lawfully enacted by Parliament and did not violate Articles 5 or 8.
Salim said that under the law as it stands, a child can only be released if granted a pardon under Article 42 of the constitution.
He said based on the recent Federal Court ruling, it is time for Parliament to amend the Child Act to address the issue of indefinite detentions.
“In the same vein, it must also empower the Federal Court to review and decide on the liberty of each child’s case individually,” he added.