9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the special leave petition by a third party/stranger in a criminal prosecution. 2. Interpretation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, particularly Sections 2(l), 2(k), 2(p), and 28. 3. The applicability of the JJ Act to juveniles committing heinous crimes. 4. Incorporation of international concepts of age of criminal responsibility. 5. Reading down the JJ Act in consonance with Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Summary: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Special Leave Petition by a Third Party/Stranger The Court examined whether the adjudication sought by the Petitioner should be refused based on the principle that a third party/stranger does not have the right to participate in a criminal prosecution, which is primarily the function of the State. The Respondents argued that the administration of criminal justice does not envisage any role for a third party/stranger, citing several decisions of the Court. However, the Petitioners contended that their prayers were in the larger public interest and did not seek impleadment in the proceedings against the first Respondent. The Court concluded that the special leave petition does not suffer from the vice of absence of locus on the part of the Petitioners and is maintainable. Issue 2: Interpretation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 The Petitioners sought an authoritative interpretation of Sections 2(l) and 2(k) of the JJ Act, arguing that the criterion of 18 years should not apply to cases of grave offences, particularly heinous crimes against women. They also sought categorization of offences under Section 2(p) based on the grievousness of the crime and the threat to public safety and order. The Court noted that the interpretation sought by the Petitioners would have implications beyond the case of the first Respondent and would affect all juveniles who may come into conflict with the law. Issue 3: Applicability of the JJ Act to Juveniles Committing Heinous Crimes The Petitioners argued that Section 28 of the JJ Act should be interpreted to exclude serious offences with a minimum punishment of 7 years imprisonment from its purview, and such offences should be tried by an Ordinary Criminal Court. The Court acknowledged that the adjudication sought by the Petitioners would have far-reaching consequences on an indeterminate number of persons not presently before the Court. Issue 4: Incorporation of International Concepts of Age of Criminal Responsibility The Petitioners sought the incorporation of the international concept of age of criminal responsibility and the dilution of the blanket immunity provided to juvenile offenders based on age. The Court did not specifically address this issue in the judgment but indicated that the interpretation of the JJ Act would have broader implications. Issue 5: Reading Down the JJ Act in Consonance with Fundamental Rights The Petitioners argued that the JJ Act should be read down in consonance with the rights of victims as protected by Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court decided to hear the special leave petition on merits and attempt to provide an answer to the several questions raised by the Petitioners. Conclusion: The Supreme Court issued notice in the special leave petition and permitted the Respondents to bring additional pleadings on record. The Court clarified that the Board could proceed further in the matter against the first Respondent and render orders in accordance with law.
|
