- The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (HC or Court), in Sushila Devi v Union of India issued a notice challenging several provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (Model Rules).
- The notice was issued in response to a plea alleging abused and forced conversion of a minor girl in a Child Care Institution where was remanded by the Child Ware Committee (CWC). The plea was filed by the minor’s mother.
- The Appellants contended that the JJ Act accorded arbitrary powers leading to the violation of the fundamental rights of the minor.
- Brief facts are that a false case of sexual abuse of the minor was registered pursuant to which she was produced before the CWC in violation of Rule 81(1) of the Model Rules and sent to institutional care. It is alleged that the minor was then was indoctrinated in Christianity without the Petitioner's consent and subjected to cruelty and exploitation for several months.
- In the please submitted before the Court, the was submitted that the exclusive powers vested on CWCs in under Section 29(2) of the JJ Act relating to children in need of care and protection is arbitrary in nature. It was also submitted that Rule 76 (2) (i) & Rule 76 (2) (ii) of the Model Rules are also arbitrary in nature because it entrusts the exclusive responsibility of reporting cases of cruelty committed against a child inside Child Care Institution on the same people responsible for violation of rights.
- The Plea also challenged Sections 27 (2) 27 (4) of the JJ Act read with Rule 15 (3) of the Model Rules regarding the composition of CWC; Section 27 (9) of the JJ Act which confers power of Metropolitan Magistrate on CWC and Sections 30(i) and 30 (ii) & (iv) relating to powers of CWC for taking cognizance and conducting inquiries.
- Further, Form 22 of the Model Rules was also challenged on the basis that it promotes intrusive and pervasive social profiling of children in the guise of collecting information for Social Investigation Report of Child in need of care and protection.
- During the pendency of the SLP, a complaint (original complaint) seeking transfer of the said case from the Special Court to the Court of CCB and CBCID, Metropolitan Magistrate, (MM) Egmore, Chennai was filed.
- The HC, the High Court allowed/ disposed of the petition and directed the concerned police officials to take back the final report from the Special Courts and file the same before the MM, Egmore, Chennai.
- Thereafter, on special mention made by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the High Court, on two occasions, directed transfers 82 and 782 cases respectively, pending in the Special Courts to the jurisdictional courts.
- The SC noted that no proceedings were pending before the Learned Single Judge when the impugned transfer orders were passed by the HC. The SC remarked that passing of orders on a ‘special mentioning’ that too, in a disposed of matter was unheard of and that the Single Judge had become functus officio (having performed his duty) insofar as the matter of original complaint was concerned.
- Expressing its disapproval towards the approach adopted by the HC, the Court remarked that it could not comprehend how in a disposed of matter with respect to only one case, further orders could have been passed by the High Court transferring approximately 864 cases pending in different Special Courts.
- Quashing the impugned order of the HC on the grounds of the same being without jurisdiction, the SC noted that even on merits, the transfer orders were in the teeth of the interim order passed by the SC in the SLP.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
