Ensuring Dignity: Delhi High Court Validates Infrastructure for Child Victims

In a significant judicial appraisal of the protocols protecting child victims within the criminal justice system, the High Court of Delhi has addressed a long-standing petition regarding the efficacy of services provided to victims of sexual assault appearing before the Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs). Presided over by Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, the Court concluded that the concerns raised by the petitioners were largely addressed by existing legislative frameworks and functional infrastructure.

The Origin of the Petition

The proceedings emerged from a 2015 case involving a juvenile-accused acquitted by the JJ Board in FIR No. 142/2013. The petitioner, the father of a six-year-old victim, approached the Court seeking transparency—specifically the supply of the acquittal order—and broader institutional reforms, including the provision of victim counseling, specialized legal support, and the establishment of dedicated spaces for vulnerable witnesses.

Navigating Privacy and Legal Precedent

The Court faced a complex intersection of the right to information and the statutory mandate of confidentiality. Citing Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 , the Court clarified that an order of acquittal by a JJ Board carries an embargo on disclosure to protect the juvenile's future.

Furthermore, the Court held that the right to challenge an acquittal is not an indefeasible right under the JJ Act, relying on the decision in X Minor through Father Natural Guardian v. State & Ors. (2012), which limits the scope of appeals in proceedings involving juveniles. Consequently, the Court declined to force the disclosure of the acquittal record, balancing the rights of the victim with the stringent protectionist mandate of the JJ Act.

Bridging the Infrastructure Gap: The Role of VWDCs

A pivotal concern raised during the hearing was whether child victims appearing before the JJBs were disadvantaged compared to those in regular courts due to a lack of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres (VWDCs).

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that the vulnerability of a child is universal, regardless of the forum. "The trauma, vulnerability, and need for protection of a child victim of sexual assault remains the same, irrespective of whether the proceedings are conducted before a Magisterial/Sessions Court or a JJ Board," the Court observed.

Upon directing the Registrar General and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) to conduct an audit, the reports revealed that all Juvenile Justice Boards in Delhi had successfully implemented the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. The dedicated facilities include: * Video-conferencing capabilities for remote testimony. * Separate waiting and counseling rooms for victims. * Entry/exit points designed to ensure the victim and the juvenile-accused never face each other.

Key Observations

• On the Equality of Protection : "There can be no distinction, in law or in principle, between victims of sexual assault who approach and depose before criminal courts situated in the district judiciary and those who seek justice before the JJ Boards."
• On the Integrity of the Procedure : "What clearly emerges from the replies... is that a structured and sensitive protocol is presently being followed by the JJ Boards in Delhi while recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses."
• On Policy Limitation : "Prayers (e) and (f), being in the nature of public interest and policy formulation, are beyond the scope of the present proceedings."

Final Verdict: A Systemic Endorsement

The Court ultimately disposed of the petition, noting that the robust, post-2015 legal framework—supported by the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme and specific Supreme Court directions in cases like Nipun Saxena v. Union of India —effectively covers the requests made by the petitioners. By confirming that the infrastructure is fully functional, the High Court has reaffirmed its commitment to the dignity and trauma-informed care of child survivors of sexual violence, closing the chapter on this decade-long grievance while emphasizing the judiciary's ongoing vigil over these essential services.