Published on: May 08, 2024 11:25 IST
Supreme Court directed all judicial bodies, including Courts, Tribunals, Boards, and Quasi-judicial authorities, to specify the names of presiding officers or members in their orders, including interim ones. Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal presided over a case involving an appeal challenging a High Court judgment. The case pertained to an FIR filed against a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), charged with offenses under various sections including sections 376(i), 342 IPC, and sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Initially granted bail, the CCL faced a jurisdictional dispute when the Principal Magistrate of the Board opined for adult trial, while a Board Member dissented, advocating for juvenile trial. Subsequently, the Board decided in favor of juvenile trial, but procedural irregularities arose. An application for transferring the proceedings to the Children’s Court was dismissed by the Board, leading to an appeal to the High Court, which directed the transmission of records for trial to the Children’s Court.
Sidharth Luthra, counsel for the appellant, criticized the practice of delaying reasons for orders, which inhibits timely remedies for concerned parties. The Court noted the mandatory completion period of preliminary assessments under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, but deemed it directory rather than mandatory, allowing extensions with proper justification. It clarified the interchangeable use of “Children’s Court” and “Court of Sessions” in the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules, asserting the primacy of the former unless unavailable, in which case, the latter assumes jurisdiction.
The ruling, in the case titled “Child in Conflict with law through his mother v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.” (Case No.: Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3033 of 2024), was delivered by Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal.