2014 Supreme(SC) 239

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY & ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD & ANR. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 2014 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.1953 of 2013) with W.P. (Crl.) No.204 of 2013
Decided on : 28-3-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
No juvenile can be sent to face regular trial.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – SLP – Maintainability – Locus standi – The question raised, i.e., interpretation of JJ Act – Likely to have far reaching effects – Question of maintainability pales into insignificance. (Para 8)

       (b) Interpretation of Judgments – Article 141 of the Constitution binds all courts in the country by decisions handed down by Supreme Court – This however does not apply to Supreme Court itself – It can reconsider and overrule an earlier judgment – Doing so does not constitute sitting in appeal – It is done in exceptional circumstances like when the earlier judgment is per incuriam. (Para 20)

       (2013) 4 SCC 705; (1989) 3 SCC 151; (2012) 10 SCC 1 – Referred

       (c) Administration of Justice – Juveniles – Differences between JJ System and Criminal Justice System highlighted. (Para 38)

       (d) Interpretation of statute – An Act must be interpreted and understood to advance the cause of the legislation and to confer the benefits of the provisions thereof to the category of persons for whom the legislation has been made. (Para 39)

       (2005) 3 SCC 551 – Relied upon

       (e) Interpretation of statute – Doctrine of reading down – Cannot be resorted to when the meaning of the statute is plain and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear – On plain and literal reading and understanding of the statute appearing unconstitutional – Courts must explore whether there has been an unintended legislative omission – In that case the Act may be read down to save it from unconstitutionality – JJ Act need not be read down. (Para 42, 45)

       1991 Supp. (1) SCC 600 – Relied upon

       (f) Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Section 2(I) and 2(k) – No ambiguity – All persons below 18 years put in one class/category – Done to effectuate international conventions and rulings to which India is signatory – Categorization with broad features and reasonably connected with the object targeted is not barred by Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 43, 44)

       (1974) 4 SCC 428; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 116; (1994) 3 SCC 569; (2004) 3 SCC 609; (2010) 3 SCC 314; (2011) 2 SCC 575 – Relied upon

       (2013) 3 SCALE 1 – Referred

       (g) Administration of Justice – Criminal justice system and JJ system – JJ Act does not do away or obliterate the enforcement of the law for juvenile offenders – Same penal law (IPC) apply to all juveniles – Only difference between the two is in scheme of procedures and punishments – a (Para 47)

       (1983) 2 SCC 277; (2000) 8 SCC 437 – Distinguished

       Constitution of India – Separation of powers – Legislative and judicial powers – Courts must confine its scrutiny to the legality of the law – Not the necessity of the law to be made or continued. (Para 48)

       (1974) 4 SCC 428 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       While a young lady and her friend while returning home by bus after watching a movie in Delhi on 16th December, 2012, 5 persons brutally assaulted the young lady, sexually and physically, and also her friend. Both of them were thrown out of the bus. The young lady succumbed to her injuries on 29.12.2012.

       Five persons were apprehended in connection with the crime. One of them, identified as Raju (the appellant), was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of the crime. Accordingly, his case was referred for inquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board.

       Before the Juvenile Justice Board the petitioners had filed applications for their impleadment to enable them to ‘prosecute’ the juvenile alongside the public prosecutor. The petitioners also claimed that, on a proper interpretation of the Act, the juvenile was not entitled to the benefits under the Act but was liable to be tried under the penal law of the land in a regular criminal court alongwith the other accused.

       Insofar as the interpretation of the provisions of the Act for determination of the question whether the offence(s) allegedly committed by the juvenile is to be inquired into by the Board or the juvenile is required to be tried in a regular criminal court is concerned, the Board had directed the petitioners to seek a authoritative pronouncement on the said issue(s) from the High Court.

       The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board the alternative remedies available under the Act should be exhausted in the first instance and in the course thereof the question of interpretation of the provisions of the Act can well be considered.

       The Board rejected the prayer of the petitioners for impleadment in the proceeding against the delinquent and seeking participation therein.

       Finding of the Court:

       No question of sending the juvenile – Raju to face a regular trial can and does arise.