Back
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Others – Appellant
Versus
Raju, Through Member, Juvenile Justice Board & Another – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1953 of 2013
Decided On : 22-08-2013
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- Section 2(p)- If this Court is to interpret the provisions of the Act in the manner sought by the petitioners, the possible effect thereof in so far as the first Respondent is concerned will pale into insignificance in the backdrop of the far reaching consequences that such an interpretation may have on an indeterminate number of persons not presently before the Court. … We, therefore, will proceed to hear the special leave petition on merits and attempt to provide an answer to the several questions raised by the petitioners before us. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
On 16.12.2012, a ghastly incident of gang rape took place in a moving bus in the streets of Delhi. Later the victim of the offence died. The first respondent was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence of the crime. While the Juvenile Justice Board was in seisin of the matter against the first respondent, the petitioners in the special leave petition approached the Board seeking impleadment in the proceedings before the Board and an interpretation of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 so as to enable the prosecution of the first respondent in a regular criminal court. According to the petitioners while the Board did not pass any written orders in the matter it had expressed its inability to decide the question of law brought before it and directed the petitioners to approach a higher Court.
Findings of the Court:
If this Court is to interpret the provisions of the Act in the manner sought by the petitioners, the possible effect thereof in so far as the first Respondent is concerned will pale into insignificance in the backdrop of the far reaching consequences that such an interpretation may have on an indeterminate number of persons not presently before the Court. We are, therefore, of the view that it would be appropriate for us hold that the special leave petition does not suffer from the vice of absence of locus on the part of the petitioners so as to render the same not maintainable in law.
The questions raised by the petitioners require an answer which need not be specific qua the first respondent we make it clear that it is now open for the Board to proceed further in the matter and render such orders, in accordance with law, as may be considered just, adequate and proper.
Result : Orders accordingly.
Judgment :-
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. Should the adjudication sought for by the petitioner be refused at the threshold on the basis of the fairly well established legal proposition that a third party/stranger does not have any right to participate in a criminal prosecution which is primarily the function of the State. The aforesaid question arises in the following facts and circumstances.
2. On 16.12.2012, a ghastly incident of gang rape took place in a moving bus in the streets of Delhi. In connection with the said incident six accused were arrested on 22.12.2012, one of whom, namely, the first respondent in the present special leave petition was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence of the crime. The victim of the offence died on 29.1.2013. While the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter for short “the Board”) was in seisin of the matter against the first respondent, the petitioners in the special leave petition approached the Board seeking impleadment in the proceedings before the Board and an interpretation of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter for short ‘the JJ Act’) so as to enable the prosecution of the first respondent in a regular criminal court. According to the petitioners while the Board did not pass any written orders in the matter it had expressed its inability to decide the question of law brought before it and directed the petitioners to approach a higher Court
Accordingly, on 18.1.2013 the petitioners filed a public interest litigation in the High Court of Delhi with the following prayers.
(i) Laying down an authoritative interpretation of Sections 2(l) and 2(k) of the Act that the criterion of 18 years set out therein does not comprehend cases grave offences in general and of heinous crimes against women in particular that shakes the roots of humanity in general.
(ii) That the definition of offences under Section 2(p) of the Act be categorized as per the grievousness of the crime committed and the threat to public safety and order.
(iii) That Section 28 of the Act be interpreted in terms of its definition, i.e., Alternative Punishment and serious offences having minimum punishment of 7 years imprisonment and above be brought outside its purview and the same should be tried by an Ordinary Criminal Court.
(iv) Incorporating in the Act, the international concept of age of Criminal Responsibility and diluting the blanket immunity provided to the juvenile offender on the basis of age.
(v) That the instant Act be read down in consonance with the rights of victim as protected by various Fundamental Rights including Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(vi) Pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. By order dated 23.1.2013 the High Court declined to answer the questions raised on the ground that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under the JJ Act against the order as may have been passed by the Board. On the very next day, i.e., on 24.1.2013 the Board dismissed the application filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment and the other reliefs. On 19.2.2013 the petitioners had approached this Court seeking special leave to appeal against the order dated 23.1.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the public interest litigation.
4. The prayers made by the petitioners in the public interest litigation before the High Court not having been touched upon in any manner whatsoever, on the ground already noticed, naturally the scope of the present special leave petition, if it is to be entertained, must be understood to be co-extensive with the questions arising before the High Court.
5. At the very outset, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union as well as Mr. A.J. Bhambhani, learned counsel for the first respondent has raised a vehement plea that this special leave petition should not be entertained as the same ex fac
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
