- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 5 September 1989
- Bench
- Ranganath Misra, G. L. Oza
Headnote
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: Sections 2(e)(h), 53 and 62-Setting up of Advisory Boards for implementation of Act-Directions-Issued.
In a public interest application filed under Article 32 of the Con-stitution for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution being denied to the hundreds of juvenile delin-quents, all over the country, the Supreme Court had issued directions from time to time.
Issuing further directions in the matter, this Court, HELD: For the present the Advisory Board in terms of the provi-sion of the scheme for facilitating the monitoring of the implementation of the Act should be set up at the State level and steps at the District level may be deferred. [35E] ·
Each of the States, including the State of Jammu & Kashmir to which the scheme would apply, by its consent, is directed to set up its Advisory Board in terms of the scheme. The total number of the Advis-ory Boards should not be below 15 and not above 20. The State Govern-ment should indicate as to who would be the Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Board. Such Committee should be set up within six weeks and report of compliance filed with the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. The first meeting of the Board should be within four weeks of its constitution and every such Board should send its first proceeding to the Registry. [35F, H, 36A-B)
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
ORDER
It is stated by counsel appearing for the States including that of Nagaland that affidavits as directed have been filed. Mr. Jain appear-ing in support of the writ pet\tion has asked for a direction to the State to set up Advisory Boards both at the State and the District levels, as contemplated in the scheme so that implementation of the various provisions of the Act can be facilitated.
We are of the view that for the present the Board in terms of the provision of the scheme should be set up at the State level and steps at the District level may be deferred for the present.
Each of the States including the State of Jammu & Kashmir to which the scheme would apply though not under the Act in view of its consent, is directed to set up its Advisory Board in terms of the scheme. Implementation of the Act would be convenient if in the Board to be set up the Ministers of Law and Social or Children's Welfare, as the case may be, the Secretary to Government in the relevant Department, the Head of the Police Establishment (Director General or the Inspector General, as the case may be), the Head of the Health Directorate, two members of the Bar with appropriate aptitude, an acknowledge lady social worker, a Member of Parliame.nt and a M.ember of the State Legislature, one or two social worke£> of .acknowledged ate -.reput~ preferably connected with children's rehabilita-tion activity included. It would be open to the State Government to make small variations depending upon the requirements of any particular State. The total number 20: of the Advisory Boards should not be below 15 and not above The State Government should indicate as to wno would be the Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Board. Such Committee should be set up within six weeks from today ·and report of compliance shall be filed with the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. The first meeting of the Board should be within four weeks of its constitution and every such Board is directed to send its first proceeding to the Registry.
Case details
Arising from
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 1451 of 1985.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Appearances
· R.K. Jain and R.K. Bhatt for the Petitioner.
Kapil Sibal, Anil D. Singh, V.C. Mahajan, A. S. Nambiar, Salman Khurshid, Gopal Singh, Ms. K. Jaiswal, Ms. S. Janani, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. Indira Sawhney, Mrs. Urmila-Kapoor, A.S. Bhasme, A.M. Khanwilkar, K.R. Nambiar, J.R. Das, D.K. Sinha, D. Bhandari, Y.P. Rao, S.K. Agnihotri, P.K. Manohar, M. Veerap-pa, R.K. Mehta, K.R.R. Nambiar, B.D. Sharma, K. Vasdev, D.N. Mukharjee, M.P. Jha, T.V.S.N. Chari, Mahabir Singh, M.N. Shroff, A. Subba Rao, R.S. Sodhi, K. Ramkumar, S.K. Bhattacharya, L.R. Singh, A.K. Sanghi, C.V.S. Rao, R. Venkataramani, Probir Choud-hary, T.V.S. Krishnamurthy, S. Vasudevan, D.R.K. Reddy, K.J. Rao and U .N. Singh for the Respondents. ,.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.