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

2021 Supreme(Del) 2392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ.
Court on its own motion - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.REF. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 27-10-2021

The court has the authority to issue directions to streamline the inquiry process for juveniles in conflict with the law, including setting timeframes for age-determination processes and utilizing the Juvenile Justice Fund.

Headnote:

Juvenile Justice - Inquiry into Petty Offences - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 105, Rule 83 - The court issued directions to terminate pending inquiries into petty offences against children/juveniles older than 1 year and to set timeframes for age-determination processes. The court also directed the state to provide information on pending cases and the Juvenile Justice Fund.

Fact of the Case:

The court issued directions to terminate pending inquiries into petty offences against children/juveniles older than 1 year and to set timeframes for age-determination processes. The state provided information on the status of cases and suggested timeframes for age-determination processes.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there were 19 pending inquiries into petty offences against children/juveniles, and directed the state to provide further details on these cases and the rehabilitation plans for the juveniles. The court also considered suggestions for setting timeframes for age-determination processes and for utilizing the Juvenile Justice Fund.

Issues: Pending inquiries into petty offences against children/juveniles, timeframes for age-determination processes, utilization of the Juvenile Justice Fund, and proposal to increase the number of Juvenile Justice Boards.

Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to terminate pending inquiries older than 1 year and set timeframes for age-determination processes. The court also directed the state to provide information on pending cases and the Juvenile Justice Fund.

Final Decision: The court issued directions to terminate pending inquiries into petty offences against children/juveniles older than 1 year, set timeframes for age-determination processes, and requested information on pending cases and the Juvenile Justice Fund.

ORDER

Order released on: 29.10.2021

1. In para 16 of order dated 29.09.2021, this court had passed the following directions:

    "i. In all cases alleging petty offences against children/juveniles, where the inquiry has been pending and remains inconclusive for longer than 01 year, regardless of whether the subject child/juvenile has been produced before the JJB, all such inquiries shall stand terminated with immediate effect; a formal order closing all such matters shall be passed by the JJBs in each file within 02 (two) weeks from the date of this order; and any children/juveniles detained in relation to such inquiries, shall be released immediately without waiting for recording the formal orders. In issuing this direction we take note of the fact that when a report/final report is filed alleging a petty offence, it is the State's own case, that the subject is a child or juvenile. We are passing these directions ex debito justiciae, to correct an error in the judicial dispensation, since we believe there is no justification in keeping such matters pending any longer;

    ii. Insofar as cases against children/juveniles who are alleged to have committed petty offences, where inquiries are pending for between 06 months and 01 year, the State is directed to apprise this court of the number of such cases pending in each JJB in Delhi along with the date of institution of the inquiry and the date of first production (if any) in each case, within 10 (ten) days from the date of this order, so that further necessary directions in that behalf may be passed by this court."

2. In compliance of the directions contained in para 16(i) of order dated 29.09.2021 extracted above, Ms. Nandita Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing for the State, has placed on record certain documents vide Index No. 869725 dated 26.10.2021 indicating the status of cases as referred to above in our order dated 29.09.2021, in all 06 Juvenile Justice Boards (`JJBs') in Delhi by way of tabulated summaries. Furthermore, Ms. Rao has also handed-up in court an additional tabulated summary relating to JJB-II, Delhi Gate, New Delhi which gives the status of pendency of cases as of today 27.10.2021.

3. We are informed that as of date, only 19 inquiries relating to petty offences against children/juveniles are pending before JJB-II, while all such inquiries pending before other JJBs either stand closed; or it transpired that there were no such inquiries pending before such Boards.

4. Insofar as the 19 cases pending before JJB-II are concerned, Ms. Rao informs us that there are specific reasons for which these inquiries are yet to be closed, details of which are contained in the tabulated summary. Let the tabulated summaries relating to JJB-II as updated to 27.10.2021 be filed on record. In any case, Ms. Rao assures the court that these 19 inquiries will also be closed within the next few weeks.

5. Accordingly, going by the number of inquiries indicated in the tabulated summaries relating to the various JJBs in Delhi, it transpires that according to the State, a total of 913 inquiries alleging petty offences against children/juveniles stand closed as of 27.10.2021.

6. Insofar as the directions contained in para 16(ii) of order dated 29.09.2021 extracted above are concerned, Ms. Rao seeks further time to furnish to the court details of the number of inquiries alleging petty offences against the children/juveniles pending for a period between 06 months and 01 year, along with the date of first production, if any. Furthermore, Ms. Rao submits that the rehabilitation plans/individual childcare plans in relation to these juveniles would also be furnished within this timeframe.

7. Ms. Anu Grover Baliga, learned Secretary, DHCLSC who is assisting the court in the matter further suggests that since the first and most significant point of delay in disposal of inquiries is that no timeframe has been stipulated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Production of Chil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top