In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has adopted a nuanced stance on the three-month time limit stipulated in Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015, pertaining to the assessment of juveniles’ mental and physical capacity to commit serious offenses.
The Court emphasized that while Section 14(3) sets a timeframe for the preliminary assessment, it is not rigidly mandatory but rather serves as a guiding directive. Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, comprising the bench, elucidated that due to the multifaceted nature of preliminary inquiries involving various stakeholders such as investigating officers and experts, strict adherence to the stipulated period may not always be feasible.
Citing the absence of specified consequences for non-compliance within the statute, the Court reasoned that the three-month provision cannot be deemed obligatory. Section 14(4) of the Act, dealing with inquiries into petty offenses, contrasts starkly with the flexibility accorded to preliminary assessments.
Section 15(1) of the Act mandates the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct a preliminary assessment, evaluating the juvenile’s cognitive capacity, comprehension of the offense’s ramifications, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense. However, the Court’s interpretation extends beyond the literal wording, aiming for a cohesive and pragmatic application.
Acknowledging the need for interpretative flexibility, the Court endorsed the extension of the inquiry period, akin to the provisions outlined in Section 14(1). This extension, subject to justification and recorded reasoning, aligns with the Act’s overarching objectives and facilitates a purposive interpretation.
The Court drew support from precedents set by various High Courts, including those in Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab, and Haryana, which similarly construed analogous provisions of the erstwhile Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Notable legal luminaries, including Mr. S Nagamuthu, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, and Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, represented the petitioners, while Mr. Aman Panwar and Mr. V. N. Raghupathy led the respondents’ legal counsel.
In a case pitting a child in conflict with the law against the State of Karnataka and another, the Court’s nuanced approach ensures a balanced and pragmatic application of juvenile justice statutes, promoting fair and effective legal proceedings.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
