Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Petition Challenging Validity Of Section 15 JJ Act; Liberty Granted To Approach HC

The Supreme Court bench on Monday (January 8) dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality of S.15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act) which provided for a preliminary assessment of Juveniles above the age of 16, charged with heinous crimes. Refusing to entertain the petition, the bench comprising Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra however granted the petitioners the liberty to pursue their remedy under Article 226 before the Delhi High Court. The advocate contended that through the petition they endeavoured to challenge certain retrogressive amendments to the JJ Act “which is leading to a dilution of the entire Juvenile Justice System in India”. As per the main prayer, the petition sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or directions to strike down the amending provisions, or the misinterpretation and non-applications of the JJ Act along with the 2021 Amendment Act on the grounds of being violative of Articles 14,15,16,21,23 and 24 of the Constitution with respect to the juveniles . When asked by the CJI why the High Court was not approached for this, the Petitioners contended that they were dealing with a broader range of issues including the contradictory interpretations given by 9 High Courts on the application of S. 438 of CrPC to the Juvenile Justice cases. The bench observed that on a similar issue, a petition is already pending before the bench headed by Justice Hrishikesh Roy. The counsel added that the present petition also challenges the constitutionality of Preliminary assessment under S.15 of the JJ Act, a ground which has not been raised before any court so far. The CJI verbally remarked, “ You can have the benefit of the Delhi High Court's judgement if you go to the High Court and get a judgement. We can allow you to file a petition before the Delhi High Court to challenge this under Article 226…let the High Court give you judgment, you can come here if something remains in the petition.” The Court, observing that the petitioners can avail their efficacious remedy under Article 226 before the High Court, dismissed the same. The two main grounds which the present petition urged pertained to firstly, the application of S.438 of CrPC providing anticipatory bail in the context of the special legislation of Juvenile Justice and secondly, the invalidity of S.15 of the JJ Act in light of Article 14 of the Constitution. As per the petition, the JJ Act is silent on the applicability of section 438 of CrPC and grants liberty to seek a regular bail. The prohibition of "police custody" in the Juvenile Justice Act, which inherently involves "arrest" and placement in "police lock-up," renders the concept of anticipatory bail incompatible with the juvenile justice system. While Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seemingly offers legal safeguarding for a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) or a juvenile, its application could potentially undermine the entire legal structure governing the juvenile justice system. In essence, the intent of anticipatory bail appears to extend beyond the boundaries set by the Juvenile Justice Act, raising concerns about its impact on the overall efficacy of the juvenile justice framework. Chapter IV of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, focusing on the "Procedure in Relation to Children in Conflict with Law," introduces a distinct procedure outlined in sections 10, 11, and 12. These sections specifically address the apprehension of a child alleged to be a CCL, the responsibilities of the individual in whose care the CCL is placed, and the provision for bail to an individual who appears to be a child alleged to be a CCL. Notably, there exists no provision for the detention of a CCL in police or judicial custody. Instead, the police or the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) are required to place the child in an Observation Home or a place of safety governed by the government or a voluntary organization as stipulated under the Juvenile Justice Act. The petition contended that “In the absence of foolproof guidelines, there is a lack of uniform approach manifested in divergent opinions of Hon‟ble High Courts on applicability of Section 438, CrPC to juvenile justice cases. It is apparent from the aforesaid provisions that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are ordinarily applicable only where an offence under the Indian Penal Code or under any other penal law is being investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt with.” Citing several decisions of various High Courts, the Petition also underlined the need for a settled principle of law on the issue of applicability of S.438 CrPC. For instance, the Gauhati High Court in Kara Taling Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine Gau 2234 held that S. 12 of the J J Act comprehensively addresses all circumstances concerning a child in conflict with the law, omitting any provision for arrest within ...

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Petition Challenging Validity Of Section 15 JJ Act; Liberty Granted To Approach HC

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Petition Challenging Validity Of Section 15 JJ Act; Liberty Granted To Approach HC

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers