SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 344

DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH KUMAR – Respondent


ORDER

1. It is submitted by Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG appearing for the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights that he will file a Chart indicating the constitution of Human Rights Courts and appointment of Special Public Prosecutors by the States after collecting the data as per order dated 4.1.2018.

2. At this stage, we have been apprised that in certain States, there is non-compliance of Sections 25 and 26 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act read as follows:-

25. Children’s Courts. - For the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of child rights, the State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification, specify at least a court in the State or specify, for each district, a Court of Session to be a Children's Court to try the said offences:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply if -
(a) a Court of Session is already specified as a special court; or
(b) a special court is already constituted, for such offences under any other law for the time being in force.
26. Special Public Prosecutor.- For every Children's Cour




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top