Examine safeguards under juvenile Act, HC tells courts

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 7

It is back to learning for all courts across Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, including the Juvenile Justice Boards.

In conflict with law

The trial of minors was being conducted jointly with the adult co-accused in a case. The Bench was told that two of the ‘many accused’ were juveniles in conflict with law.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a general direction to all of them to examine Section 23 and “other cognisant provisions” of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. They have further been directed to ensure that the safeguards stipulated therein are meticulously followed henceforth.

The direction by the Bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain came in a case where the trial of minors was actually being conducted jointly with the adult co-accused. The Bench was told that two of the “many accused” were juveniles in conflict with law.

All the evidence was examined in a consolidated manner, in spite of clear mandate of Sections 19 and 23 of the Act and Rule 13 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2016. This was because the same officer was trying the “major accused” in the capacity of a Sessions Court and the juveniles as the presiding officer of the Children’s Court.

The counsel for the juvenile applicants also told the Bench that the same procedure was found to be followed in the states of Punjab and Haryana in all cases where some accused were “major” and some juveniles. The juvenile applicants were represented by senior advocate VK Jindal with Gopal Soni, Vineet Jakhar and Gurminder Singh

As the case came up for hearing, the Bench observed that “some affidavits” filed on behalf of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh were not satisfactory. Details were not mentioned about the position prevailing as far as the pending trials were concerned. The Bench also granted an additional opportunity to file necessary details while directing the Registry to forward the order’s copy to all judicial officers in the states of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Referring to the facts of the case in hand, the Bench added that it was not denied that the trial of the applicants, otherwise minors but to be tried as adults, was actually conducted jointly with the adult co-accused. It was sought to be justified by saying that the challans were separate and so were the case. But the crux of the matter was that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was taken jointly.

“These cases present a serious issue which may take some time to remedy. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence of the applicants/appellants during the pendency of the present appeal,” the Bench added.