CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (2024 INSC 387)

The Supreme Court recently issued a landmark judgment in the case of CCL vs. State of Karnataka, highlighting the interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act. This case dealt with crucial issues concerning the treatment of a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) and the state’s role in the juvenile justice system. The judgment covers key aspects of the Act and sets important precedents for future legal proceedings. Stay tuned for a detailed analysis of this significant decision.

Facts

The High Court set aside the order dated 10.04.2023, passed by the Board. On 05.04.2022, the Principal Magistrate of the Board ruled that the CCL be tried as an adult in the Children’s Court. An application to transfer the case to the Children’s Court was filed after the trial had begun before the Board, but the Board dismissed this application filed by the victim’s mother. If the order dated 12.04.2022 cannot be upheld legally, it could reinstate the order dated 05.04.2022, allowing the CCL to appeal. However, due to developments following the 12.04.2022 order, the CCL has lost the opportunity to appeal.

The case was scheduled on 12.04.2022, and arguments were heard by two Members of the Board. An order was issued on the same day to transfer the records to the Children’s Court for trial. The Board was instructed to conduct an enquiry into the alleged offense by the CCL as a juvenile.

An application under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act was filed by the victim’s mother. The contested order dated 10.04.2023 was annulled in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1243 of 2023. Arguments were reheard on 12.04.2022 by two Members, excluding the Principal Magistrate. The Principal Magistrate and another Member of the Board had conflicting views in their order. The matter was postponed to 12.04.2022 for further proceedings. One Member did not sign the order despite hearing the arguments. The Board dismissed the complainant’s application. The FIR against the CCL included offenses under various sections of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act. The Board was responsible for deciding whether to try the CCL as a juvenile or an adult. Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Ultimately, the Board decided to conduct the enquiry treating the CCL as a juvenile.

Articles and Acts Involved

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 342 and 376(i), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012- Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015- Sections 14(1),14 (3), and 19.

Arguments

The Learned Counsel for the State referenced judgments from the Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, and Delhi High Courts, citing cases such as Bhola vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[1], Neeraj and Others vs. State of Haryana[2], and X vs. State[3]. They argued that the inquiry under Section 15[4] of the Juvenile Justice Act requires input from experienced professionals. They claimed that even after the Board’s order transferring the case to the Children’s Court, it can still be reconsidered by the Children’s Court under Section 19(1)[5] of the Act. Their arguments were supported by the judgment in Balaji Baliram Mupade v. State of Maharashtra and Others[6]. They asserted that the order dated 05.04.2022 is not legally binding and that the appellant’s arguments challenging the order lack merit. Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. S. Nagamuthu, representing the CCL, criticized the practice of delaying reasons in court orders.

Analysis

The High Court raised significant concerns about transparency and the roles of members in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, suggesting that names should be mentioned below signatures for better accountability. The Court examined whether the Children’s Court or the Board should conduct the trial. It highlighted the failure to file an appeal against an order deemed appealable under Section 101(1)[7] of the Act and discussed the courts’ power to extend time for filing written statements. The placement of Section 18(3)[8] was questioned for its appropriateness.

The Court determined that the time frame for completing a preliminary assessment under Section 15[9] is not mandatory and noted anomalies in the Act and Rules for further examination. Section 2(22)[10] defines ‘Committee’ as the Child Welfare Committee constituted under Section 27[11], while Section 2(23)[12] defines ‘court’ as a civil court with jurisdiction in matters of adoption and guardianship, including District Courts, Family Courts, and City Civil Courts. The Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has jurisdiction to try offenses under Section 67B[13] of the Information Technology Act, 2000, related to online abuse of children.

Section 18(3)[14] of the Act mandates that after a preliminary assessment, the Board can order the trial of a child as an adult. In cases of heinous offenses committed by a child above sixteen years, investigation documents must be produced within one month of the child being brought before the Board. Appeals against the Board’s orders can be made to the Court of Sessions. The Children’s Court decides on the necessity of trying a child as an adult and includes an individual care plan in its final order, ensuring a child-friendly atmosphere during proceedings and providing necessary rehabilitation services. The High Court can review any order passed by the Board or Children’s Court for legality and propriety.

Model Rules, 2016, outline post-production processes, preliminary assessments into heinous offenses, completion of inquiries, and procedures for Children’s Courts and Monitoring Authorities. In terms of the meaning of Section 34(5), the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta accurately reflect the current status of the law. Numerous High Court rulings have established the necessity of Section 34(5). The Supreme Court has emphasized reconciling relevant provisions to advance the remedy intended by the statute, discussing interpretation principles that allow a flexible approach based on context and legislative intent. The Supreme Court has deemed the consequences of non-compliance within prescribed periods in a statute as mandatory and has supported High Court judgments that consider certain provisions as mandatory based on specified consequences of non-compliance.

The High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction in the present matter, with no error found in this regard. The High Court’s decision was justified and in accordance with the law.

Decision

It was determined that the High Court’s order from November 15, 2023, concerning the process under Section 7(4) of the Act, was error-free. The Principal Magistrate’s signed order dated April 5, 2022 was considered final. The National Judicial Academy, State Judicial Academies, Directors of Juvenile Justice Boards, and Judicial Officers are all to get copies of the ruling. The objective of the matter, any identifying numbers, and the presence of parties and/or counsels must all be accurately recorded by presiding officers and members. Subject to the aggrieved party’s right of appeal, appellants may file an appeal within ten days after the order.

If adequate cause is demonstrated, the appeal may be considered after the 10-day deadline, albeit this could cause a delay in the proceedings. In an ideal world, the appellate court would rule on the appeal in less than 30 days. It would be pointless to allow the same reasons to be brought again because all of the arguments made in the High Court’s revised decision were taken into consideration. Any appeal should be decided within thirty days, if possible. The Child in Conflict with Law filed an appeal in opposition to the ruling made by the High Court. After the appeal is filed, the appellate body shall try to make a decision within two months. The names of the Presiding Officer and/or Signing Members must appear on all orders. A 30-day window exists for filing an appeal under Section 15 against a Board order, with the option to excuse a delay if justifiable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the case of CCL vs. State of Karnataka underscores critical interpretations of the Juvenile Justice Act, specifically addressing the treatment of a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) and the state’s responsibilities within the juvenile justice system. This ruling not only clarifies key provisions of the Act but also establishes significant precedents for future legal proceedings. The High Court’s scrutiny of the Board’s proceedings and subsequent orders reveals important considerations regarding transparency, accountability, and procedural adherence in judicial and quasi-judicial settings. By addressing the appeals process, the role of the Children’s Court versus the Board, and the mandatory nature of certain statutory provisions, the Court has provided a comprehensive analysis that highlights the need for meticulous adherence to legal standards and procedures.

The judgment calls for the dissemination of its findings among judicial officers and members of relevant judicial and educational bodies, reinforcing the importance of proper documentation and timely appeals. It also emphasizes the necessity for presiding officers and members to clearly record proceedings and sign orders to ensure accountability. By reaffirming the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction and outlining the appropriate channels and timelines for appeals, the Supreme Court’s decision aims to streamline the judicial process and uphold the integrity of the juvenile justice system. This ruling not only addresses the immediate concerns of the case at hand but also sets a robust framework for handling similar cases in the future, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and efficiently.

References:

[1] ‘Bhola vs. State of Madhya Pradesh’ (2003) 3 SCC 1 (note)

[2] ‘Neeraj and Others vs. State of Haryana’ CRM-M No. 28801 of 2023 (note)

[3] ‘X vs. State’ NCT of Delhi (2022) (note)

[4] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 15

[5] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 19(1)

[6] ‘Balaji Baliram Mupade v. State of Maharashtra and Others’ AIR 2020 SC 5758

[7] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 101(1)

[8] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 18(3)

[9] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 15

[10] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 2(22)

[11] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 27

[12] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 2(23)

[13] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, s 67B

[14] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, s 18(3)