SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 3189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW And G. ROHINI, JJ.
R.K. TARUN – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1308/2013
Decided on : 19-11-2015

Subject

Juvenile Justice - Age Determination

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14
JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT : S.2(k), S.2(l), S.4, S.14, S.15, S.2(g), S.68, S.68(1), S.7(a), S.49
JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN RULES : R.12, R.12(3)

Headnote

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12(3) - Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 - Rule 12(3) - Public Interest Litigation - Juvenile - Age determination - Conflict with law - Constitutional validity - Procedure prescribed both under Rule 12(3) of the Model Rules and under Rule 12(3) of the State Rules for determination of the age of a child or juvenile in conflict with law is unjust - Juvenile Justice Act is a special law enacted to deal with offences committed by juveniles in a manner which is meant to be different from the law applicable to adults - Determination of age assumes great importance in all the matters - Rule 12 of the Model Rules as well as the State Rules provides the procedure to be followed by the Courts for the purpose of determination of age in every case concerning a child or a juvenile or a juvenile in conflict with law - Held, once the statutory rules have prescribed the procedure to be followed, in the event of deviation of the prescribed procedure, remedies are available to the concerned parties - Such deviation cannot be a ground to find fault with the statutory rules - Suggestions have already been made by DSLSA for amendment of the State Rules.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12(3) - Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 - Rule 12(3) - Juvenile justice - Age determination - Procedure - Applicability of state rule - There is no need for any confusion in the procedure to be followed by JJBs in Delhi for determination of age of the child or juvenile in conflict with law - Despite the slight variation in the preference to be given to the evidence that is required to be produced for determination of age between the Model Rules and the State Rules, the JJBs in Delhi are required to follow the procedure prescribed in the State Rules only - Held, Rule 12(3) of both Model Rules and the State Rules are valid - JJBs in Delhi are required to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 12(3) of the State Rules - Writ petition is disposed of.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mr. C.M. Manaktala & Mr. Kunal Punj, Advs. for R-1 & 2. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for GNCTD. Mr. Dharmesh Sharma, Member Secretary, DSLSA & Mr. Surinder S. Rathi, OSD, DSLSA.

JUDGMENT

1. In this petition filed by way of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and Rule 12(3) of the Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 which prescribe the procedure to be followed for determination of age of a juvenile in conflict with law, are ultra vires and unconstitutional being violative of the Constitution of India.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

3. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short Act‘) has been enacted consolidating and amending the law relating to juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by providing proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their development needs and by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation.

4. Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice Act defines juvenile or child as a person who has not completed 18th year of age. The expression juvenile in conflict with law‘ is defined under Section 2(l) of the Juvenile Justice Act as a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed 18th year of age as on the date of commission of such offence.

5. Section 4 of the said Act provides for constitution of one or more Juvenile Justice Boards by the State Government for every district for exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred or imposed on such Boards in relation to juveniles in conflict with law. Every Juvenile Justice Board (for short JJB) shall consist of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class as the case may be and two social workers. As per Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the JJB shall have power to deal exclusively with all proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act relating to juvenile in conflict with law. Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides that where a juvenile having been charged with the offence is produced before a JJB, it shall hold the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and may make such order in relation to the juvenile as it deems fit. The various orders that may be passed by JJB regarding juveniles are enumerated under Section 15 of the Act.

6. The issue raised in the present writ petition relates to the procedure to be followed for determination of the age of the person brought before the JJB under any of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Section 49 of the Act which provides for presumption and determination of age reads as under:

?49. Presumption and determination of age. – (1) Where it appears to a competent authority that person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile or the child, the competent authority shall make due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or the child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. (2) No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to have become invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the person in respect of whom the order has been made is not a juvenile or the child, and the age recorded by the competent authority to be the age of person so brought before it, shall for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.

7. A plain reading of the above provision shows that when a person is brought before the competent authority under any of the provisions of the Act, the competent authority is required to make due inquiry as to the age of that person and for that purpose take such evidence as may be necessary and record a








































1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top