Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court

Dissent Without Detailed Reasoning Does Not Invalidate Decision of Principal Magistrate: Supreme Court issued specific directions regarding procedural conduct within juvenile justice proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court  clarified important aspects of juvenile justice, particularly regarding the process and authority of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to decide whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult. The apex court’s judgment emphasized that “dissent without detailed reasoning does not invalidate the decision of the Principal Magistrate whose decision prevails.”

The central legal issue in the case revolved around the authority of the Juvenile Justice Board to determine if a child in conflict with the law (CCL), accused of committing heinous offences, should be tried as an adult or remain within the juvenile system. The question was whether the dissenting opinion of a board member, without detailed reasons, could nullify the majority decision led by the Principal Magistrate.

The case involved a juvenile accused under stringent sections of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Initially, the Principal Magistrate of the JJB decided that the juvenile should be tried as an adult based on preliminary assessments. However, another board member disagreed but did not provide detailed reasons. This led to a legal challenge on whether the JJB’s decision to try the juvenile as an adult was valid.

Validity of JJB’s Decision: The Supreme Court noted that the Juvenile Justice Act allows the Principal Magistrate’s decision to prevail in case of no majority. It stated, “The dissent by a member of the JJB, lacking a detailed rationale, cannot undermine the reasoned decision of the Principal Magistrate.”

Procedure and Documentation: The court criticized procedural lapses and emphasized the need for better documentation in JJB orders, including recording the names and IDs of members to enhance transparency and accountability.

Jurisdictional Clarity: The apex court provided clarity on the jurisdictional competence between the Children’s Court and the Juvenile Justice Board, directing that both can be used interchangeably depending on the availability and constitution of the respective courts in the district.

Directions Issued – The Supreme Court issued specific directions regarding procedural conduct within juvenile justice proceedings:

Words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court of Sessions’ in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably, primarily jurisdiction vests in the Children’s Court, however, in the absence of constitution of such Children’s Court in the district, the power to be exercised under the Act is vested with the Court of Sessions.

  • Appeal under Section 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed under Section 15 of the Act can be filed within a period of 30 days, with provision for condonation of delay.
  • The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction upheld as per Section 102 of the JJ Act.
  • The Presiding Officers and/or Members while passing the order shall properly record presence of the parties and/or their counsels, the purpose for which the matter is being adjourned, and the party on whose behalf the adjournment has been sought and granted.
  • Names of the Presiding Officer and/or Members who sign the orders shall be mentioned along with any identification number if available.

Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by upholding the High Court’s decision that reinstated the trial of the juvenile as an adult. It directed the juvenile justice system to follow procedural protocols strictly and allowed the appellant to challenge the decision within specified timelines.

Date of Decision: May 7, 2024

Child in Conflict with Law through His Mother v. The State of Karnataka and Another

Similar News