The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to follow Rule 8-B of the Tamil Nadu Juvenile Justice Rules for determining juvenility in the State of Tamil Nadu.

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. T. Lakshmi, the petitioner herein, is the sister of the detenu Senthil @ Senthil Kumar, who was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Sections 302, 379 and 201 IPC in S.C.No.33/2006 on 04.11.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, which was confirmed by this Court on 13.10.2008 in Crl.A.No.701/2008.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her brother was a juvenile as on date of the occurrence, namely 05.07.2008 and therefore, he would be entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as JJ Act]. In support of her plea, she produced the School records of her brother and this Court having been prima facie satisfied with the claim, by order dated 11.09.2013 referred the matter to the learned First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore to conduct inquiry and submit a report with regard to the age of the detenu. Accordingly, the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore issued notice to the detenu and to the State. We would like to stop here for a moment and briefly recapitulate the law relating to such a plea, in the light of a few recent judgments of the Supreme Court.

3. Section 7-A was introduced in the JJ Act by Central Act 33 of 2006 with effect from 22.08.2006, whereby, a procedure has been laid down whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before this Court. This provision was considered by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Abuzar Hussain @ Gulam vs. State of West Bengal [2012(4) MLJ (crl)334 SC] and it was held by the Apex Court that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any time even after the conviction and sentence of the accused has been confirmed by the highest Court. The Supreme Court said that, for the purpose of ordering an Inquiry under Section 7A, "The matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability". It has also cautioned that:

"(vi) Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the Court at threshold whenever raised."

In a subsequent judgment, Ashwant Kumar Saxena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2013 SC 553], the Supreme Court considered the scope of Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Rules, 2007 and held that, the inquiry contemplated for determining the claim of juvenility should not be one as under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but should be one done within the parameters of Rule 12. Therefore, the broad principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases would apply as the law of land until reversed by the Apex Court or set at naught by the legislature.

4. The question that now falls for consideration before us is, whether Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Rules, 2007 would apply to the State of Tamil Nadu? The Rule making power is traceable to Section 68(1) of the JJ Act which, prior to amendment by Act 33 of 2006, read as under:

"The State Government may, by notification in Official Gazette, make Rules to carryout the purposes of this Act."

There was no proviso to Section 68(1) when the original Act was passed. The proviso to Section 68(1) was included by Section 26(1) of the JJ [Care and Protection of Children] Amendment Act, 2006 [Central Act 33 of 2006] with effect from 22.08.2006. The proviso runs as follows:

"Provided that the Central Government may, frame model rules in respect of all or any of the matters with respect to which the State Government may make rules under this section, and where any such model rules have been framed in respect of any such matter, they shall apply to the State until the rules in respect of that matter is made by the State Government and while making any such rules, so far as it practicable, they conform to such model rules."

The reason fo