G. ROHINI, J.

1. The issue "whether a juvenile in conflict with law, who is found to have committed an offence and sent to Special Home by Juvenile Justice Board, can be released on expiry of the period of stay ordered without ascertaining the factum of reformation that is necessary for his social reintergration" is sought to be espoused in this petition filed as Public Interest Litigation.

2. Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') provides for orders that may be passed by the Juvenile Justice Board regarding a juvenile who has committed an offence. The most stringent of the orders that can be passed under Section 15 is directing the juvenile to be sent to a Special Home for a maximum period of three years.

3. Contending that the scheme of the Act is silent about the mechanism to ascertain the reformation of the juveniles sent to the Special Home, particularly, the juveniles who had committed heinous crimes like rape, before releasing them from the Special Home and apprehending that release of such juveniles at the end of the stay in the Special Home would be a menace to the society, the present petition is filed seeking a writ, order or direction:

“(a) laying down an authoritative interpretation of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, so as to supply the lacuna therein; and

(b) to pass an order that such unreformed juvenile not be released until it is demonstrably assured that he has reformed, ceased to be radicalised and is not a menace to society.”

4. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, it is alleged in the petition that the respondent No.1 herein, who was convicted in Nirbhaya gang rape case, continues to be unreformed and indeed has become radicalised by association with another juvenile convicted for his involvement in Delhi High Court blast case on 07.09.2011, during his stay in Special Home.

5. Pointing out that the object of the Act is to provide for care, protection, development and rehabilitation of neglected and delinquent juveniles, it is submitted by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the petitioner appearing in person, that the respondent No.1, who has committed a serious crime of brutal gang rape cannot be released until it is demonstrably assured that he has reformed during his stay in Special Home.

6. Since the three years of the incarceration of the respondent No.1 expires on 20.12.2015, the petitioner seeks an interim direction to continue the incarceration of the respondent No.1 during the pendency of the present writ petition or until it is assured that he has demonstrably reformed, ceased to be radicalised and is not a menace to society.

7. When the matter came up for admission on 11.12.2015, we passed the following order:

“1. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government accepted notice for the respondents No.2 and 3. He also undertakes to serve notice on the respondent No.1 through the Juvenile Justice Board, Delhi. Notice Dasti as well.

2. The learned standing counsel has placed before this Court the reports of the Intelligence Bureau relating to the behaviour of the respondent No.1 during his stay in Special Home. The same be circulated in a sealed cover for perusal of the Court.

3. Call on 14.12.2015 by which date, the learned standing counsel shall take instructions as to the measures if any taken by the Management Committee regarding the post release follow up of the respondent No.1 as provided under Rule 55 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.

A copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.”

8. On 14.12.2015, Shri Sanjay Jain, the learned ASG has appeared on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3 and placed before this court the letter received from the Additional Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Government of NCT of Delhi dated 12.12.2015 wherein the Ministry of Home Affairs has been informed that the respondent No.1 who has now turned an adult