Allahabad High Court has directed its registry to take back the name of the juvenile involved in a recent matter, from all its records. The judgement was given by the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori, in pursuance of a Criminal Revision Petition U/s 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015, challenging the dismissal of the plea of Bail.
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act 2015, states that, The High Court may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or Children's Court, or Court has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit: Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori said,
the identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juvenile and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. NCT Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed."
THE Court directed that the Memo where the name of the juvenile was mentioned must be struck down and the same be removed from all record.
The Supreme Court in its landmark judgement of Shilpa Mittal Vs. NCT Delhi 2020, and on several other occasions from time to time has laid down that the disclosure of the name of the juvenile, and other related personal information is in contravention to Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015
Section 74 states that,
(1)No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of communication regarding any inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure, shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or witness of a crime, involved in such matter, under any other law for the time being in force, nor shall the picture of any such child be published:
Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Board or Committee, as the case may be, holding the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the best interest of the child.
(2) The Police shall not disclose any record of the child for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise in cases where the case has been closed or disposed of.
(3) Any person contravening the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or both.
CASE BACKGROUND:
The victim was standing in his college vicinity, when he was shot by a pistol. An FIR was registered against three people in this connection. The injured victim died while he was being taken to the hospital. The accused (herein revisionist) was declared a juvenile as his age was accounted to be mere 15 years, 6 months and 18 years at the time of commission of the incident. Later on, the application of the revisionist was denied by the Juvenile Justice Board. He filed an appeal, however, the rejection order of the Juvenile Justice Board was sustained. Hence, the revision petition was filed against the orders of the Appellate Court and Juvenile Justice Court.
Revisionists/Appellants Counsel:
It was submitted by the appellants counsel that the appellants name was not part of the original FIR and was considered only upon the hearsay of a witness. The counsel laid stress on the absence of any criminal history of the revisionist. He said that the Social Information Report of the Probation officer was not taken into consideration and thus the Court had passed the impugned order and during the while the details of the revisionist were also disclosed.
Respondents Counsel:
The Counsel for the respondent, however, maintained the stance that since the revisionist had committed a heinous crime. Bail shall not be granted at any cost.
The Bench held that The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" as well as other provisions in relation to juvenile 'X' and have declined to grant bail merely on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court are based on the heinousness of the offence
The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of "JJ Act, 2015" is available
Section 12(1) says that When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Fundamental Principles of Care and Protection of Children (Section 3, J.J. Act)
The court, while dealing with the present criminal revision shed light on the Fundamental Principles of Care and Protection of Children to be followed while adjudicating such cases:
- Principle of presumption of innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be an innocent of any mala-fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years.
- Principle of dignity and worth: All human being shall be treated with equal dignity and rights.
- Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential.
- Principle of family responsibility: The primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be.
- Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial or accusatory words are not to be used in the process pertaining to a child.
- Principle of right to privacy and confidentiality: Every child shall have a right to protection of his privacy and confidentiality, by all means and throughout the judicial process."
Hence, the present revision petition filed by the revisionist was allowed by the court and the revisionist was enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions. Case Title: Juvenile 'X' through his father v. State of U.P. and Anr.
