Terminate inconclusive “petty offence” cases against juveniles: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently directed that all cases lodged against juveniles or children in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) for petty offences be terminated immediately, if the inquiry has remained inconclusive for over one year. (Court on its own motion v. State).The Court has ordered Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) across Delhi to pass formal orders for the termination of such petty offence cases against juveniles within two weeks.."In all cases alleging petty offences against children/juveniles, where the inquiry has been pending and remains inconclusive for longer than 01 year, regardless of whether the subject child/juvenile has been produced before the JJB, all such inquiries shall stand terminated with immediate effect", the order stated. .Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani have also directed the release of all juveniles apprehended for such offences without awaiting official orders..The Court passed the order while pointing out that this is what the law under Section 14 of the JJ Act required. ."... we are clear ... that on a plain reading of section 14(4), if an inquiry relates to a ‘child’; and the allegation is that the child has committed a ‘petty offence’; and a period of 04 months has elapsed from the date of the child’s first production before a JJB; but the inquiry remains inconclusive, by operation of law, that is to say automatically, such inquiry proceedings are to ‘stand terminated’", the Court said. .The decision came after the Court took up issues concerning the same on its own motion while dealing with a the writ petition that concerned child trafficking (Sadhan Haldar v The State NCT of Delhi and ors)..The Court felt the need to enlarge the scope of the case to settle several issues regarding the interpretation and effective implementation of the JJ Act..The Court was informed that about 1,903 cases were pending before Juvenile Justice Boards which fell within the ambit of Section 14 of the JJ Act..Section 14 states that if a child commits a petty offence (offences for which the maximum punishment is three years of imprisonment) and the inquiry regarding the same has remained inconclusive for four months (which can be extended by two months) from the date on which the child is first produced in front of the JJB, the case would stand terminated..The Court observed that due to the ongoing pandemic, many such children were not produced before the JJB despite the ruling in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v GNCTD & ors, wherein it was decided that organisations working for the welfare of children can continue work via video conferencing amid the COVID pandemic..Since the date of first production before the JJB itself was being postponed, there was a delay in terminating petty offence cases against children in conflict with law, even though the inquiry remained inconclusive and pending for over a year..The Court observed that even the mere pendency of an inquiry against a child can be stigmatic and can severely impact the child’s dignity. Such a situation is completely unacceptable, the Court opined..The Court went on to note that the main cause of such pendency is a lack of statutory understanding..It was pointed out that in proceedings under the JJ Act, the first step is to declare the person in conflict with law to be a “child”, failing which, the inquiry cannot begin..Section 14 requires the inquiry in petty offence cases to be completed within a maximum of six months. However, it was taken to mean that this six months time period did not start running until after the ascertainment of age and after the production of the child before the JJB. The ascertainment of age itself took a substantial amount of time, thereby leading to delays in starting the inquiry, the Court was told..The Court has now clarified that the ascertainment of age has to be decided by the JJB at the very threshold itself. The Court added that it cannot be said that the six month period under Section 14 would start running only after it is determined whether the accused is a child or not..The measurement of time under Section 14 starts from the date of first production before the JJB, age ascertained or not, the Court opined..“In our view, the age determination process must be completed within the 04 month period, extendible by 02 months, stipulated in section 14 and cannot extend beyond that period. And since section 14 says that the period of 04 months shall run from the date of first production of the child before the JJB, we direct that in consonance with the spirit of section 10, the child must be so produced before the JJB, whether or not apprehended or otherwise detained, without any loss of time but in any case within a period of twenty-four hours of the child becoming subject of processes under the JJ Act”, the Court ordered..As for how age determination should be conducted, the Court referred to Section 94 of the JJ Act, which states that the age should first be determined by the obvious appearance of the subject before the JJB. If the appearance leaves any doubt as to age, it can be determined by looking at the school or matriculation certificate, in absence of which, the birth certificate can be looked at. In absence of both these documents, an ossification test is to be conducted within fifteen days..The Court has opined that there is no reason to believe that the methods mentioned in Section 94 would take months to implement. .Hence, in keeping with the spirit of Section 10 (apprehension of juvenile in conflict with law), the accused must be presented before the Board within twenty-four hours and the age determined within four months, the Court ordered..As far as the cases against children for petty offences whose inquiry is pending for six months to one year are concerned, the Court has ordered the State to gather data from all JJBs in Delhi and apprise it of the number of pending cases along with date of institution of inquiry and date of first production (if any) within ten days..The matter will be heard next on October 12, 2021..Senior Advocate HS Phoolka assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae, along with Advocate Shilpa Dewan. ASC (Criminal) Nandita Rao and, Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjay Lao appered for the GNCTD along with advoctes SI Sanjeev and PS Jaitpur. .Advocate Prabhsahay Kaur appeared for Bachpan Bachao Andolan. Advocate RHA Sikander appeared for the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR). Advocate Kawal Jeet Arora represented the DSLSA, CGSC Ripudaman Bhardwaj appeared for the Union of India, Advocate Anu Grover Baliga represented DHCLSC along with Advocate Harsh Prabhakar. Standing Counsel Tushar Sannu and Advocate Shubham Gupta appeared for the East Delhi Municipal Corporation..[Read Order]