Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.
Rxxxxx Dxxxxx - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1806 of 2022
Decided On : 26-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R. S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Rubina, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae., for the Respondent

An undertrial or a juvenile in conflict with the law does not have any Fundamental Right or Statutory Right to higher education abroad. However, the right to travel abroad, although a valuable and basic human right, can be curtailed according to the procedure established by law in a reasonable, just, and fair manner by considering the scheme, object, and spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially Sections 90 and 91.

Headnote:
Fundamental Right - Higher Education Abroad - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 90, 91 - The court held that an undertrial or a juvenile in conflict with law does not have any Fundamental Right or Statutory Right to higher education abroad. However, the right to travel abroad, although a valuable and basic human right, can be curtailed according to the procedure established by law in a reasonable, just, and fair manner by considering the scheme, object, and spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially Sections 90 and 91. The impugned orders were set aside as they were not in consonance with the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Juvenile Justice Board was directed to pass a fresh order within a period of one month in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a juvenile in conflict with the law, sought permission to travel abroad for higher education. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurugram, declined the petitioner's application citing the ongoing inquiry and potential delay in the proceedings. The petitioner appealed the decisions, leading to the present Revision Petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner does not have a Fundamental Right or Statutory Right to higher education abroad. However, the right to travel abroad, although a valuable and basic human right, can be curtailed according to the procedure established by law in a reasonable, just, and fair manner by considering the scheme, object, and spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially Sections 90 and 91. The impugned orders were set aside as they were not in consonance with the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Juvenile Justice Board was directed to pass a fresh order within a period of one month in accordance with the law.
Issues: The court considered two main issues: (i) Whether an undertrial or a juvenile in conflict with law has any Fundamental or Statutory right to higher education abroad; (ii) Whether the impugned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Addl. Sessions Judge are in consonance with the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially Sections 90 and 91.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner does not have a Fundamental Right or Statutory Right to higher education abroad. However, the right to travel abroad, although a valuable and basic human right, can be curtailed according to the procedure established by law in a reasonable, just, and fair manner by considering the scheme, object, and spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially Sections 90 and 91. The impugned orders were set aside as they were not in consonance with the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Juvenile Justice Board was directed to pass a fresh order within a period of one month in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The present petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and 27.06.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurugram are hereby set aside. The Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram is directed to pass a fresh order within a period of one month on receipt of a copy of this order and in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral) - The present Revision Petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as the JJB) by which the application of the petitioner/child-in-conflict with law (hereinafter mentioned as CCL) by which permission sought to travel abroad for higher education was declined and also order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurugram by which the appeal filed by the petitioner/CCL was dismissed.

Facts of the case:

2. FIR No. 83 dated 23.08.2020 was lodged on the basis of the statement made by the complainant that in the morning at about 5:45 AM, he started on his motorcycle for going to Greater Noida (UP) alongwith his friend namely Alok Gupta and they were also to go to Mahamaya Greater Noida (UP) and he parked his motorcycle No. HR26CRT 2403 Mark Harley Davidson near the Petrol Pump of Sector 56. They both started from there for Noida and had worn all protective gears and they both started on their respective motorcycles following each other and reached ahead of Rapid Metro Station DLF Phase-II, Gurugram near Belvedare Park and his friend Alok Gupta was ahead of him. At that time, the driver of Ford Figo car No. HR51BN 8332 came from the side of Shankar Chowk at fast speed and driving negligently struck against the divider in the midst of road and after breaking the fence and coming up on wrong side, and after striking against Metro Pillar struck against the motorcycle of his friend Alok Gupta. Because of the striking, the motorcycle of his friend fell down and his friend received many injuries. At that time, he called the Ambulance on the spot and got admitted his friend to a hospital at Gurugram for treatment. However, due to injuries suffered in accident, his friend unfortunately died. As per the allegations, the accident has been caused by driving the car at fast speed and negligently and his friend had died due to injuries suffered by the accident. Initially the FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC but thereafter Sections 304-II IPC and Section 199A of the Motor Vechile Act were added and it was alleged that the petitioner instigated the car driver to drive the car at fast speed. Thereafter, challan was presented under Sections 304-II read with Section 114 IPC.

3. The petitioner and the driver of the car being juveniles were proceeded under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the JJ Act) and consequently inquiry against them had commenced. The petitioner thereafter moved an application before the JJB seeking renewal of his passport on the ground that he has been selected to pursue graduation course in Columbia College at Chicago, US which is a course of four years commencing from 6th of September 2022 and he has to apply for visa which can be granted only when the passpart is renewed. This application of the petitioner was allowed by the JJB on 02.04.2022 vide Annexure P-2 to the effect that the passport authority was at liberty to consider the renewal of the passport of the applicant-CCL for a period of five years in accordance with law and as per the prevailing rules and guidelines. It was however made clear that the renewal of passport, if any, in favour of the petitioner will not confer any right upon him and he shall seek requisite permission from the Board in case he intends to travel abroad or visit some foreign country. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for permission to travel abroad vide Annexure P-5 on the ground that the petitioner wishes to pursue a degree of Music at Columbia College at Chicago and the course is of four years. He also undertook to appear before the Court through his counsel or through his natural guardian. The aforesaid application seeking permission to travel abroad was dismisssed by the Principal Judge, Juven