Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 1039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
IN REFERENCE
Versus
MEMO NO.454/2024 BHOPAL DATED 23/11/2024
Misc. Criminal Case No.1133 of 2025
Decided On : 19-05-2025
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri A.J. Mathew, Advocate appears as Amicus Curiae.
Shri Deepesh Joshi, Special Public Prosecutor for National Investigation Agency.
When a juvenile in conflict with law is ordered to be tried as an adult, the trial must be conducted by a Children's Court, as the child-protection legislation contains an overriding non-obstante clause that prevails over other special statutes regarding jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 1(4), 15, and 18(3) - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Sections 11 and 13 - Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 - Section 25 - Conflict of jurisdiction - Trial of juvenile in conflict with law for scheduled offences - Juvenile directed to be tried as an adult - Whether trial to be held before Special Court constituted under specific investigative legislation or Children’s Court - Beneficial nature of legislation - Principles of legislative interpretation regarding non-obstante clauses. (Paras 4, 5, 7, 10, 15, 21, 26)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Non-obstante clauses - Conflicting enactments - Later legislation containing comprehensive overriding provisions prevails over earlier special enactments with limited overriding scope - Legislative intent in providing inclusive areas of operation for protective legislation - Rule of harmonious construction and purpose-oriented interpretation. (Paras 12, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
A reference was made by a judicial authority seeking guidance on the appropriate forum for the trial of a juvenile in conflict with law. The juvenile was charged with serious offences, including those categorized under laws concerning national security. Following a preliminary assessment, the juvenile was ordered to be tried as an adult. A conflict arose regarding whether the trial should proceed before a specialized court established for such serious offences or a designated children's court under child-specific legislation.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the child-specific legislation, being a later, beneficial, and specialized enactment, contains a broad non-obstante clause that overrides any other law in force. In contrast, the investigative legislation's overriding clause is limited to the procedural code and cannot displace the specific mandates regarding the trial of juveniles.
Issues: Whether the jurisdiction to try a juvenile in conflict with law—transferred to be tried as an adult—vests in the Special Court constituted under investigative legislation or the Children’s Court under child-specific legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: Given the clear and unambiguous intent of the legislature manifested via the wide-ranging non-obstante clause in the child-protection statute, which encompasses all matters concerning children in conflict with law and overrides any other law, the Children’s Court remains the mandated forum. The principle that a later protective statute prevails over other concurrent legislation holds, ensuring the best interest of the juvenile is upheld.
Result: Reference answered: The jurisdiction to try the case vests in the Children’s Court and not in the Special Court acting under the investigative legislation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determination of proper forum for juvenile trial amidst conflicting statutes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. competing interpretations of nia act jurisdiction versus protective jurisdiction of jj act. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. beneficial legislation rules and interpretation of non-obstante clauses in legal conflicts. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. comparing limited overriding effect of nia act section 13 against absolute overriding effect of jj act section 1(4). (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. juvenile cases transferred for adult trial fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the children's court. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER :
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
It is a reference made by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal seeking guidance as to which court shall try the S.T.No.187/2024 (State v. Sayed Meer Hussain) which is pending against a juvenile in conflict with law under Sections 120-B, 122, 307, 326, 324 of IPC; Sections 3 /4 of the Explosive Substances Act; Sections 150, 151 of Railways Act; Section 4 of Public Property (Prevention) Act; and Sections 16(b), 18, 25, 38 and 39 of PREVENTION OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT , whether it should be tried by the Special Judge under NIA Act or it should be tried by Children’s Court.
2. The original case was registered by the National Investigation Agency (for brevity “NIA”) as Special Case No.4/2017 (State v. Atif Mujaffar and others) and is pending before the Special Judge (NIA Act).
3. As per the reference made, the Sessions Trial No.187/2024 arising out of the case registered by NIA after making investigation and filing charge-sheet on 08.08.2017 under various provisions of law, as noted above. A Court i.e. XXIC D & ASJ, Bhopal is notified for the trial of case registered by NIA as per the Law Department’s notification No.1976 dated 08.05.2024 and on the basis of same, it was being tried by the said Court. An application was moved before the Special Court by juvenile in conflict with law, wherefrom it has been observed that on the date of incident, the said juvenile was less than 18 years of age, therefore, case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal according to law. It was therefore registered as RCT No.365/2024 and the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal has passed an order dated 28.04.2024 with the observation that although the juvenile on the date of incident was only 17 years of age, but he was physically and mentally fit and was competent enough to understand the consequences of the offences committed and with the aforesaid observations, the case was transferred under Section 18 (3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in brevity ‘JJ Act’ or ‘Act, 2015”) to the court constituted under Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘ Act, 2005”) and a notification issued by the State Government in that regard declaring the said Court as Children’s Court, but that was not for notified court under NIA Act. As per the said notification, the Court of Session in each Session Division of the State is specified as Children’s Court for speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of child rights. But, the said Court is not a notified Court under the NIA Act and as such reference has been made so as to ascertain which Court will try the case; whether it is the Court notified under NIA Act or it is the Children’s Court notified as per Section 25 of Act, 2005.
4. Shri Deepesh Joshi, Special Public Prosecutor, appeared on behalf of the National Investigation Agency and argued that the case has to be tried by the Court notified under the NIA Act. He submitted that the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is a special legislation and under Section 11, the powers are vested with the Central Government to designate the Courts of Session as Special Court in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court by way of a notification i
