On january 8, the supreme court dismissed a plea challenging the constitutionality of section 15 in the juvenile justice act of 2015. This particular segment focuses on assessing individuals aged 16 and older accused of serious offenses. The panel, led by chief justice dy chandrachud and justices jb pardiwala and manoj misra, rejected the petition but allowed the petitioners to pursue their case under article 226 before the delhi high court.
The petition aimed to address amendments in the jj act believed to weaken the overall juvenile justice system. It raised two primary concerns. First, it questioned the application of section 438 of the criminal procedure code (crpc), specifically related to granting anticipatory bail for juveniles. Second, it challenged the validity of section 15 concerning article 14 of the constitution, arguing that it infringes on the rights of juveniles.
The crux of the debate centered on the compatibility of anticipatory bail with the juvenile justice act. Petitioners argued that the act’s prohibition of “police custody” contradicts the concept of anticipatory bail, given that it aims to avoid such custody for juveniles by placing them in observation homes rather than police or judicial custody.
The lack of clear guidelines led to differing interpretations among high courts regarding the application of section 438 crpc to juvenile justice. While some highlighted the act’s absence of arrest provisions, others interpreted the terminology to support granting anticipatory bail for juveniles.
Regarding the challenge to section 15, the petition pointed out differences between the act’s procedures and those outlined in the criminal procedure code and the evidence act. It argued that these procedures deny juveniles adequate defense, violating their right to equality.
Moreover, the petition raised concerns about the differential treatment of 16 to 18-year-olds under the jj act, alleging a violation of their fundamental right to equality without reasonable grounds.
The plea also addressed amendments granting district magistrates expanded powers for child protection and adoption, expressing reservations about the requisite expertise for such responsibilities.
Previously, the supreme court directed departments to conduct drives to identify orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered children, aiming to simplify adoption procedures in the country.
This case underscores the intricate legal intricacies and constitutional considerations concerning the application of laws to juvenile justice. It sheds light on critical issues regarding the rights and procedural safeguards for young individuals involved in legal conflicts.
CASE NAME: PRAYAS JUVENILE AID CENTRE (JAC) SOCIETY vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001444 – / 2023.
NAME: GAYATHRI MANOJ, BBA, LLB(HONS), PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE , INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
