In a recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court has raised a crucial concern regarding the oversight in omitting the names of presiding officers or members when orders are issued under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Highlighting the issue, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal emphasized the necessity for clarity in documentation. They remarked on the challenge posed by the absence of specific identification of the presiding authorities, making it arduous to ascertain later who oversaw the proceedings.
The Court underscored the importance of inclusion, urging all orders from Courts, Tribunals, Boards, and quasi-judicial entities to specify the names of Presiding Officers or Members. They suggested the incorporation of unique identification numbers, particularly for judicial officers, to streamline the process further.
Furthermore, the Court addressed another significant lacuna in the current practice – the non-mentioning of counsels’ names during the grant of adjournments. This oversight, the Court noted, complicates the assessment of which party is responsible for delays in proceedings.
The Court emphasized the need for meticulous recording of counsel presence and the purpose behind adjournment requests. Such clarity, they asserted, would facilitate the identification of parties responsible for delays and enable the imposition of appropriate costs.
Through these directives, the Supreme Court aims to enhance transparency and efficiency within the legal framework, ensuring smoother proceedings and clearer accountability in matters governed by the Juvenile Justice Act.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
