Introduction Society must be aware and vigilant about the protection of its children because children are the future of the country and ignoring them could have serious consequences. The Legislature of our country has enacted several Statutes to deal with the Children in Conflict with the law and to provide protection to vulnerable children, Through the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, India has also provided a secular law for the Adoption of Children. In this article, | will discuss the landmark judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.on the subject of Juvenile Justice and the Protection of Children. Landmark Judgments 1. Sheela Barse & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [1986 AIR 1773] This petition was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court for getting directions regarding the release of children, below 16 years of age, from jails. The petitioners also prayed for the production of complete information about children in jails, and the existence of juvenile courts, homes, and schools in the country. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, acting on the petition, directed! + State Legal Aid & Advice Board to send two lawyers to each jail within the State once a week to provide legal assistance to children (below 16 years of age), who are detained in prisons. ps hmulamecbin.comfrictennasgarts onions selon cr 6880359+ All State Governments to report the number of children’s homes, remand homes & observation homes for children in their States, and the number of inmates in each of those institutions. * States to properly enforce the ‘Children’s Act’ enacted by them. They must file affidavits to show cause why they are not implementing those Acts. * District and Sessions Judges tomake regular visits to the District Jails and to take particular care of child prisoners. 2. Sheela Barse & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1986 SCALE (2) 230] In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme gave the following directions relating to juveniles: + In caseswhere a child has been accused of an offence that is punishable with imprisonment of fewer than 7 years, the investigation must be completed within 3 months from the lodging of the FIR and the trial must be completed within 6 months from the filing of the charge sheet. * Children must not be lodged in jails under any circumstance. Remand and observation homes must be set up by the State Governments. if there is no accommodation in these remand or observation homes, then the children should be released on bail + To ensure complete uniformity, the Union Government should enact a Children’s Act for the trial of children below 16 years of age and ensure rehabilitation of such ps hmulamecbin.comfrictennasgarts onions selon cr 6880359children. 3. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Ant In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the juvenility of a person in conflict with the law has to be reckoned from the date of the offence and not from the date on which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. 4, Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2009 SCC 13 211] Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the upper age limit for male children to be considered juveniles was 16 years. But, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("I) Act, 2000") treats children up to 18 years as juveniles. So, the primary issue before the court, in this case, was, whether JJ Act, 2000 applies to offences that have been committed before the coming into force of the JJ Act, 2000, The court held that upon conjoint reading of Sections 2 (k), 2 (V), 7A, 20, and 49, it is made clear that all the persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of the commission of the offence even before the enforcement of JJ Act, 2000, would be treated as juveniles. It would be immaterial that the claim of juvenility was raised after the accused attained the age of 18 years. 5, Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. [C No. 763 of 2003] inal Appeal In this case, the court held that anyone claiming to be a minor on the date of an offence should make such a claim at the earliest available opportunity before the Trial ps hmulamecbin.comfrictennasgarts onions selon cr 6880359Court or the High Cour. But, if no such claim is made for some reason, then that does not disentitle a person from raising such a claim before the Supreme Court. ) Act is a beneficial legislation and a technical plea (lke delay in making the claim of juvenilty) would not disable a person from making a claim under the Act. But, the burden of proof, for making out a prima facie case for directing an inquiry into the plea of juvenility, rests on the person who makes such a claim. Paseeta tory DS SE —_— TE TSCA Ula aa ee a ROOMS USING FORENSICS eee or Eee ae ue ecccieaet ener eee econ Parte Important los Meas - Pyq Series: Juiciny Special > Deciphering Legjsation: An In-depth Exploration Of Statutory Interpretation » Scope And Relevance Of Statements Recorded Under Section 161 Of Criminal Procedure Code (rpc) » Children OF Armed Forces Cannot Be Discriminated Ove To Place Of Posting OF Parents SC mule com/rictenasgrart on weniger ctor> All About The The Best Evidence Doctrine In Descriptive Deal > Exploring The News Of Freedom Of The Pres: Evolution Of Article 19, Restrictions, And Shield Laws In naa by the > Fai alin Criminal Cases Involving Cross-Complaints Necessitates Both Cases Be Ted Toot Same Judge To Avoid Prejudice: AP HC » Exploring The Differences Between Judicial Separation And Divorce Under The Hindu Marriage Acr 1955: > Paradigm Shits High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Embraces Virual Hearings In Sarvesh Mathur Vs Registrar General Comments AIT KAMBLE 2years.ag0 Ajit Leave your comment now Le] You are not logged in . Please lagin to post comments, ps hmulamecbin.comfrictennasgarts onions selon cr 6880359 saista24 aaa Lanna apres On ene Je Preteen OF Cen ps hmulamecbin.comfrictennasgarts onions selon cr 6880359 POPULAR ARTICLES Chidren OF Armed Forces Cannot Be Diseriminated Due To Place Of Posting Of Parenis: SC SSC Imposos Rs § Lakh Cost On Wife's Fatner For Fling False Cases At Dferent Places To Harass Husband Dissolution Of Marriage Under Musi Law ‘@ five-year Duration For Lb. Course Unreasonable Plaa In Supreme Court For Three-year Law Degree Course Ater 12th Standard Fair Tialn Criminal Cases invobing Cross- Complaints Necessitates Both Cases Be “Tiied Together by the Same Judge To Avoid Prejucies: AP HC Exploring The Diferances Between Judicial ‘Separation And Divorce Under The Hindu Marriage Acr 1955 Paracigm Shit: High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Embraces Virtual Hearings in Sarvosh Mathur Vs Rogistrar General ‘Athough Adultery Is Grouné For Divorce, tt Can't Be A Ground To Deny Child's Custody: Bombay HC wirMe) yoo cma) DC LOE ae uss reer Tee mg ere ec Ce om MC CO) Cowrrrs: FOLLOW ON Google News mule com/rictenasgrart on weniger ctor ‘Scope And Relevance Of Statements Recorded Under Section 181 Of Criminal Procedure Code (erp) 1) AlAbout The The Best Evidence Doctrine In Descriptive Detal More Popular Articles Ll Articles You can also submit your article by sending to email Stay updated with latest Posts! Enter your email addressArticles News scorecard Rewards Forum Experts Poi Tags Books Feed shave files Webinae Top Members Bookmarks {G1 Ontne teaming ‘Our Network sites About —Wesreliring Adverse TemsofSenice Oiesiner Pray Poly ContactUs © 2024 LAWyereclubincia. com, Let us grow stranger by mtual exchange of knowledge. ps hmulamecbin.comfrictennasgarts onions selon cr 6880359 sie