Spread the love

The Supreme court on Tuesday gave its verdict on the case of Child for conflict to his mother vs State of Karnataka and others. 

In the case the Supreme court had mainly focused on the provision of section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and had also mentioned several points about it. In the judgment the court had said that the time so provided in Section 14(3) of the juvenile justice act,2015 can be extended by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

 The bench led by justice CT Ravikumar and justice Rajesh Bindal had also mentioned about the mistakes also done by the courts and tribunals who were involved in this particular case. They further said that  “One more point observed by this Court is that while signing the order sheet and also orders, the names of the Judicial Member as well as Non-judicial Members are not noted below their signatures. This is coming in the way of anyone knowing the names of the members who were present and who were absent. Therefore, only on the basis of signatures, this Court was able to distinguish as to who was the Non-Judicial Member present on 05.04.2022 and who was the third member who joined in expressing dissenting opinion on 12.04.2022. This Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to mention the names of the members below their signatures, which would also help the transparency in conduct of the said proceedings and put the members on guard about their roles played in the said proceedings.”

In the case the FIR was lodged against the accused who was the child in conflict for law ( CCL) in which he was booked under section 376(1), 342 and sections 4,5,6,7,8 of the protection of child from sexual offences Act,2012. During the process of the investigation the CCL was brought before the board and the accused was granted bail regarding the case.

On 12.04.2022 the matter was apparently heard afresh by two Members of the Board without there being the Principal Magistrate. Order was passed that as per the preliminary assessment report and the social investigation report, the enquiry regarding the alleged offence committed by the CCL has to be conducted by the Board as a juvenile.

An application under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 20157 dated 18.10.2022 was filed by the complainant/mother of the victim before the Board for termination of proceedings and transferring the matter to the Children’s Court, to which objections were filed by the CCL. 

Later the application which was filed by the CCL’s mother was rejected by the board members.

In the end for concluding the judgment the Supreme court said that “A copy of the judgment be sent to all the Registrar Generals of High Courts for further circulation amongst the Judicial Officers and the Members of the Juvenile Justice Boards, the Directors of the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies.”

CASE NAME – Child for conflict of law through his mother vs State of Karnataka and others ( 2024)


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


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *