2011 Supreme(Mad) 2081
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C. NAGAPPAN, P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, JJ.
Jyothi & Another
Versus
Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Chennai & Others
M.P. No. 1 + 1 of 2011 in H.C.P. Nos. 55 of 2011 & 1033 of 2010
Decided on : 11-04-2011
For the Petitioners:D. Ravichander, M. Palanimuthu, Advocates.
For the Respondents:P. Kumaresan, Public Prosecutor assisted by A.D. Jagadish Chandra, Advocate.
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 provides a special procedure for dealing with minors in conflict with the law or in need of care and protection, outlining the specific authorities and procedures to be followed in such cases.
Headnote:
HABEAS CORPUS - JUVENILE JUSTICE - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Sections 6, 4, 7, 8, 9, 32, 39
Fact of the Case:
The mothers of two minor girls filed Habeas Corpus Petitions seeking custody of their respective daughters. The girls expressed unwillingness to go with their mothers, leading the court to direct them to be kept in Government Children’s Home till they attain majority. The mothers subsequently filed petitions seeking restoration of custody and visitation rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court highlighted the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, emphasizing the special procedure for dealing with minors in conflict with the law or in need of care and protection. It noted the exclusive power of the Juvenile Justice Board in such cases and the duty of magistrates to forward juveniles to the competent authority. The court also emphasized the role of the Child Welfare Committee in dealing with minors in need of care and protection.
Issues: Custody of minors, restoration of custody, visitation rights, application of the Juvenile Justice Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which outlined the specific procedures and authorities responsible for dealing with minors in conflict with the law or in need of care and protection. The Act's provisions guided the court in directing the minors to be kept in Government Children’s Home and in suggesting the petitioners approach the Child Welfare Committee for restoration and visitation rights.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions, advising the petitioners to approach the Child Welfare Committee for seeking restoration and visitation rights as contemplated under Section 39 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. The mother of minor Deepa filed Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P. No. 55 of 2011 seeking production of the minor girl before the Court and for handing over the custody of the minor to her. The said minor Deepa was produced before this Court on 8.1.2011 and during enquiry in the Court, she said she was not willing to go with her mother, namely the petitioner and this Court directed minor Deepa be kept in Government Children’s Home, Purasaiwalkam High Road, Kelleys, Chennai till she attains majority. Thereafter, her mother Jyothi has filed the present miscellaneous petition (M.P. No. 1 of 2011 in H.C. No. 55 of 2011) seeking for restoration of the custody of the minor girl with her.
2. The mother of minor Ishwarya, namely A. Ruby filed Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P. No. 1033 of 2010 seeking production of minor Ishwarya in the Court and for handing over the custody of minor Ishwarya to her. Minor Ishwarya was produced before this Court on 22.7.2010 and during enquiry minor Ishwarya said she was not willing to go with her mother, namely the petitioner. Consequently, this Court directed minor Ishwarya to be kept in Government’s Home, Purasaiwalkam High Road, Kelleys, Chennai till she attains majority. Thereafter, her mother Ruby has filed the present miscellaneous petition (M.P. No. 1 of 2011 in H.C.P. No. 1033 of 2010) seeking visitation rights during the minor’s stay at the said home.
3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the miscellaneous petitions and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Public Prosecutor representing the state.
4. Time and again we have come across orders passed by the learned Magistrates directly sending the Juvenile in conflict with law to Observation Homes. We have also noticed a number of orders of the learned Magistrates directing the victims, who happened to be minors to be kept in the Observation Homes or Children’s Homes.
5. In the Habeas Corpus Petitions also where the production of a minor is sought for and on being produced, in the event of the minor not willing to go with the parents/lawful guardians, this Court sends the minor to Children’s Homes. The petitions now filed seek for restoration as well as visitation rights of the minors who have been ordered to be kept in Homes.
6. In the light of the above, we considered it appropriate to highlight the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the rules thereunder and for that purpose we heard the learned Public Prosecutor at length. The Director of Social Defence, Chennai has filed a report dated 5.4.2011.
7. Being a special enactment, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 shall have overriding effect with other laws except to the extent expressively saved under the said Act. It contemplates a special procedure for dealing with children whether the child in question is a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection.
8. The following procedure is contemplated under the Act with regard to Juvenile in conflict with law, who is alleged to have committed offence and has not completed 18th year of age, as on the date of commission of the offence. Section 6 of the Act gives exclusive power to the Juvenile Justice Board, to deal with all proceedings relating to Juveniles in conflict with law. The Juvenile Justice Board comprises of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First class and two social workers, of whom one shall be woman. Section 4 contemplates Constitution of one or more Juvenile Justice Board for every District. According to the Public Prosecutor, each one of the Districts of Tamil Nadu has a Juvenile Justice Board and at present no district has more than one Board. It is needless to say that as on today, there is only one Magistrate in each District who is empowered, as a member of the Board, to exercise the powers of the Board. Section 7 stipulates that when