Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI., SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
SALIL BALI - PETITIONER
VS.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 10 OF 2013
WITH
W.P.(C)NOS.14, 42, 85, 90 and 182 OF 2013
WITH
W.P.(CRL)NO.6 OF 2013
AND
T.C.(C)No. 82 OF 2013
Decided On : :July 17, 2013.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- Parliament to amend if in its wisdom-In any event, in the absence of any proper data, it would not be wise on our part to deviate from the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which represent the collective wisdom of Parliament. (Para 45)
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- No necessity of amendment- No interference is necessary with the provisions of the Statute till such time as sufficient data is available to warrant any change in the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules- On the other hand, the implementation of the various enactments relating to children, would possibly yield better results. (Para 49)
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- Object and Purpose-The essence of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder in 2007, is restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and re-integration of children in conflict with law into mainstream society-The age of eighteen has been fixed on account of the understanding of experts in child psychology and behavioural patterns that till such an age the children in conflict with law could still be redeemed and restored to mainstream society, instead of becoming hardened criminals in future. There are, of course, exceptions where a child in the age group of sixteen to eighteen may have developed criminal propensities, which would make it virtually impossible for him/her to be re-integrated into mainstream society, but such examples are not of such proportions as to warrant any change in thinking, since it is probably better to try and re-integrate children with criminal propensities into mainstream society, rather than to allow them to develop into hardened criminals, which does not augur well for the future. (Para 48)
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- Section 15(1)(g) - One misunderstanding of the law relating to the sentencing of juveniles, needs to be corrected- The said understanding needs to be clarified on account of the amendment which came into force with effect from 22.8.2006, as a result whereof even if a juvenile attains the age of eighteen years within a period of one year he would still have to undergo a sentence of three years, which could spill beyond the period of one year when he attained majority. (Para 47)
Facts of the case:
The relief which has been prayed for in common on behalf of the Petitioners was that in offences like rape and murder, juveniles should be tried under the normal law and not under the aforesaid Act and protection granted to persons up to the age of 18 years under the aforesaid Act may be removed and that the investigating agency should be permitted to keep the record of the juvenile offenders to take preventive measures to enable them to detect repeat offenders and to bring them to justice.
Findings of the Court :
We do not think that any interference is necessary with the provisions of the Statute till such time as sufficient data is available to warrant any change in the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules. On the other hand, the implementation of the various enactments relating to children, would possibly yield better results.
Result : Writ Petitions and the Transferred Case dismissed.
JUDGMENT
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
1. Seven Writ Petitions and one Transferred Case have been taken up together for consideration in view of the commonality of the grounds and reliefs prayed for therein. While in Writ Petition (C) No. 14 of 2013, Saurabh Prakash Vs. Union of India, and Writ Petition (C) No. 90 of 2013, Vinay K. Sharma Vs. Union of India, a common prayer has been made for declaration of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as ultra vires the Constitution, in Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2013, Salil Bali Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 85 of 2013, Krishna Deo Prasad Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 42 of 2013, Kamal Kumar Pandey & Sukumar Vs. Union of India and Writ Petition (C) No. 182 of 2013, Hema Sahu Vs. Union of India, a common prayer has inter alia been made to strike down the provisions of Section 2(k) and (l) of the above Act, along with a prayer to bring the said Act in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and to direct the Respondent No. 1 to take steps to make changes in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to bring it in line with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for administration of juvenile justice. In addition to the above, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2013, Shilpa Arora Sharma Vs. Union of India, a prayer has inter alia been made to appoint a panel of criminal psychologists to determine through clinical methods whether the juvenile is involved in the Delhi gang rape on 16.12.2012. Yet, another relief which has been prayed for in common during the oral submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners was that in offences like rape and murder, juveniles should be tried under the normal law and not under the aforesaid Act and protection granted to persons up to the age of 18 years under the aforesaid Act may be removed and that the investigating agency should be permitted to keep the record of the juvenile offenders to take preventive measures to enable them to detect repeat offenders and to bring them to justice. Furthermore, prayers have also been made in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2013 and Writ Petition (C) No. 85 of 2013, which are personal to the juvenile accused in the Delhi gang rape case of 16.12.2012, not to release him and to keep him in custody or any place of strict detention, after he was found to be a mentally abnormal psychic person and that proper and detailed investigation be conducted by the CBI to ascertain his correct age by examining his school documents and other records and to further declare that prohibition in Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, be declared unconstitutional.
2. In most of the matters, the Writ Petitioners appeared in-person, in support of their individual cases.
3. Writ Petition (C) No.10 of 2013, filed by Shri Salil Bali, was taken up as the first matter in the bunch. The Petitioner appearing in-person urged that it was necessary for the provisions of Section 2(k), 2(l) and 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to be reconsidered in the light of the spurt in criminal offences being committed by persons within the range of 16 to 18 years, such as the gang rape of a young woman inside a moving vehicle on 16th December, 2012, wherein along with others, a juvenile, who had attained the age of 17½ years, was being tried separately under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
4. Mr. Bali submitted that the age of responsibility, as accepted in India, is different from what has been accepted by other countries of the world. But, Mr. Bali also pointed out that even in the criminal jurisprudence prevalent in India, the age of responsibility of understanding the consequences of one's actions had been recognized as 12 years in the Indian Penal Code. Referring to Section 82 of the Code, Mr. Bali pointed out that the same provides that nothing is an offen
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
