JJ Act | Names Of Presiding Officer/Members Should Be Specifically Mentioned In Orders When Signed, Including Interim Orders: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has flagged concern about the non-mentioning of the names of the presiding officer or members when the order is passed under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. “The Presiding Officers or Members of the Board, as the case in hand, or Tribunals do not mention their names when the order is passed. As a result of which it becomes difficult to find out later on, as to who...
The Supreme Court has flagged concern about the non-mentioning of the names of the presiding officer or members when the order is passed under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
“The Presiding Officers or Members of the Board, as the case in hand, or Tribunals do not mention their names when the order is passed. As a result of which it becomes difficult to find out later on, as to who was presiding the Court or Board or Tribunal or was the member at the relevant point of time. There may be many officers with the same name. Insofar as the judicial officers are concerned, unique I.D. numbers have been issued to them.”, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal said.
“We expect that wherever lacking, in all orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the quasi-judicial authorities, the names of the Presiding Officers or the Members JJ. If there is any identification number given to the officers, the same can also be added.”, the court added.
Non-mentioning of Counsels Names While Granting Adjournment Makes It Difficult To Find Out Which Party Is Delaying Matter
According to the court, non-mentioning of the counsel's name in the order sheet, especially at the time of grant of an adjournment makes it difficult to find out which party is delaying the proceedings.
“In many of the orders the presence of the parties and/or their counsels is not properly recorded. Further, it is not evident as to on whose behalf adjournment has been sought and granted. It is very relevant fact to be considered at different stages of the case and also to find out as to who was the party delaying the matter. At the time of grant of adjournment, it should specifically be mentioned as to the purpose therefor. This may be helpful in imposition of costs also, finally once we shift to the real terms costs.”, the court said.
Also From Judgment: JJ Act | 3 Months Time Limit For Preliminary Assessment Of Juvenile As Per Sec. 14(3) Not Mandatory: Supreme Court
Case Title: CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 353
Click here to read/download the judgment