In February 2021, through which of the following cases did the Supreme court rule that in the cases when the Juvenile offender is under 18 years and above 16 years, he/she should be remitted to jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board?
Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Supreme Court Ruling on Juvenile Offenders (16-18 Years)
The question asks about a significant Supreme Court ruling from February 2021 concerning the jurisdiction for juvenile offenders aged between 16 and 18 years. This ruling clarified the procedure for handling such cases, specifically mandating remission to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board.
Analysis of the Ruling
In February 2021, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment that impacted the handling of cases involving juvenile offenders who are above 16 years but below 18 years of age at the time of committing an offence. The core of this ruling stated that irrespective of the nature of the offence, if the individual is a juvenile as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015), their case must be sent to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The JJB is then responsible for conducting the preliminary assessment as required under Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, especially in cases involving heinous offences.
This judgment reinforced the principle that the determination of whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult must follow the specific procedure laid down in the JJ Act, 2015, initiated by the JJB's assessment.
Identifying the Correct Case
The specific case through which the Supreme Court made this ruling in February 2021 is Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
This judgment is important for understanding the application of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, particularly concerning the preliminary assessment for juveniles aged 16-18 alleged to have committed heinous crimes.
Evaluation of Options
Let's look at the provided options to confirm which one corresponds to this specific Supreme Court ruling:
- Rahul Sharma v. National Insurance Company Ltd: This case typically involves motor accident claims and insurance law, not juvenile justice.
- Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana: This case pertains to inheritance rights and the Hindu Succession Act, not juvenile justice.
- Laxmibai Chandaragi v. The State of Karnataka: This case deals with the right to choose a life partner and personal liberty under Article 21, not juvenile justice.
- Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh: This case is the correct one where the Supreme Court gave the ruling regarding remitting cases of juvenile offenders aged 16-18 to the Juvenile Justice Board for preliminary assessment.
Based on the analysis, the ruling in February 2021 regarding juvenile offenders aged 16-18 being remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board came from the case of Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Revision Table: Key Concepts in Juvenile Justice
| Concept | Description | Relevance to the Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Juvenile Offender | A child in conflict with law who has not completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence. | The ruling specifically addresses offenders in the 16-18 age group. |
| Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) | A body constituted under the JJ Act, 2015, to deal with children in conflict with law. | The ruling mandates that cases for 16-18 year olds be remitted to the JJB. |
| JJ Act, 2015 | The primary law governing juvenile justice in India. It introduced provisions for trying juveniles aged 16-18 for heinous offences as adults after a preliminary assessment. | The ruling clarifies the procedure for the JJB's role under this Act. |
| Preliminary Assessment | An assessment conducted by the JJB under Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, to determine if a juvenile (16-18) alleged to have committed a heinous offence should be tried as an adult or before the JJB. | The ruling reinforces the necessity of this assessment by the JJB. |
Additional Information: The Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh Judgment
The judgment in Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh is significant because it reiterated the mandatory nature of the procedure outlined in the JJ Act, 2015, for handling juvenile offenders aged 16 to 18 years. Even if an adult court or a higher court encounters a plea of juvenility or finds the accused to be a juvenile, they must not proceed to determine whether the juvenile should be tried as an adult or send the case directly to a children's court. Instead, the matter must be remitted back to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board. The JJB is the first and primary authority tasked with conducting the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, to decide the appropriate course of action based on factors like the juvenile's mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, ability to understand its consequences, and the circumstances of the crime.
This ruling ensures that the specialized knowledge and procedure established by the JJ Act, 2015, are followed for this specific age group, upholding the protective principles of juvenile justice while also considering the gravity of the offence as per the law.
Similar Questions
In February 2022, the Delhi High Court reserved judgement on a series of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging which exception in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
Who among the following Supreme Court judges was in news in 2022 for recusing himself from hearing a plea against the ED chief's tenure extension?
Who took oath as the 49 th Chief Justice of India in August 2022?
The Supreme Court has declared access to the internet a fundamental right under Article ______ of the Indian Constitution.
Article 131 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over which of the following types of disputes?
The concept of "Reasonable Classification" as a limitation to the Right to Equality (Article 14) was established in which case?
Which Social Media Platform's plea against summons to the Delhi Assembly was rejected by the Supreme Court in July 2021?
The Supreme Court of India came into existence on ________.
Following an order of 16 July 2021 , the Supreme Court of India introduced an electronic system named ________, in November 2021, through which its crucial decisions can be communicated electronically to prison authorities and investigating agencies.
In February 2021, In which of the following cases did the Court observe that the consent of a family is not needed once two adults decide to marry?
Important Questions from Judiciary
Who appoints the judges of the Supreme Court?
Which Article of the Constitution of India described the Power of the President to "consult" the Supreme Court of India?
If a question arises about the age of a Judge of a High Court, who will decide about this matter?
How Supreme Court protects the Supremacy of the Constitution ?
i. By due process of law
ii. By procedure established by law
In the context of judicial Review what is a duty of Supreme Court:
